BOARBMAN 


ORIGINAL  SIN 


/he 


/*-  3 


LIBEAEY 

OF  THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 


BT  720  .B63  1839 
Boardman,  Henry  A,  1808- 

1880. 
A  treatise  on  the  scripture 

^nrtrinP  of  nrininal  sin    , 


— ' 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/treatiseonscriptOOboar 


A  TREATISE 


SCRIPTURE    DOCTRINE 


OF 


ORIGINAL   SIN 


WITH    EXPLANATORY    NOTES. 


BY  H.  A.  BOARDMAN, 

PASTOR  OF  THE  TENTH  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  PHILADELPHIA. 


PHILADELPHIA: 
PRESBYTERIAN  BOARD  OF  PUBLICATION. 

WILLIAM    S.    MARTIEN,    PUBLISHING    AGENT. 

1839. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year 
1839,  by  A.  W.  Mitchell,  M.  D ,  in  the  office  of  the 
Clerk  of  the  District  Court,  for  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


PART  I 


NATIVE     DEPRAVITY. 


The  question,  What  is  the  native  charac- 
ter and  condition  of  man,  is  an  important 
one,  for  several  reasons.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  one  in  which  all  men  have  a  direct  per- 
sonal concern.  In  the  second  place,  scrip- 
tural views  on  this  subject,  lie  at  the  founda- 
tion of  all  sound  theology.  He  who  misap- 
prehends the  disease  under  which  the  race 
labours,  will  fail  of  understanding  the  remedy 
that  has  been  provided  for  it.  And,  in  the 
third  place,  such  formidable  attempts  have 
been  made  in  our  day  to  set  aside  the  ancient 
doctrine  of  original  sin,  that  there  seems  to 
be  a  special  propriety  in  re-examining  the 
grounds  upon  which  it  rests. 

The  doctrine  of  the  standards  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  relation  to  the  native  cha- 
2 


14  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

racter  of  man,  may  be  learned  from  the  fol- 
lowing quotation  from  the  Larger  Catechism: 
"  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man 
fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin, 
the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he 
was  created,  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature, 
whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and 
made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good, 
and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that  con- 
tinually; which  is  commonly  called  original 
sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions." 

The  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  is 
thus  expressed  in  her  Ninth  Article:  "Origi- 
nal sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of  Adam, 
(as  the  Pelagians  do  vainly  talk,)  but.  it  is  the 
fault  and  corruption  of  the  nature  of  every 
man,  that  naturally  is  engendered  of  the  off- 
spring of  Adam;  whereby  man  is  very  far 
gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  is  of  his 
own  nature  inclined  to  evil;  so  that  the  flesh 
lusteth  always  contrary  to  the  Spirit;  and 
therefore  in  every  person,  born  into  this 
world,  it  deserveth  God's  wrath  and  damna- 
tion." The  reference  to  the  "Pelagians"  in 
in  this  Article,  requires  an  explanation  which 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  15 

may  be  of  advantage  in  the  discussion  before 
us.  Pelagius  was  a  Briton,  who  lived  in  the 
early  part  of  the  fifth  century.  He  published 
a  set  of  opinions  on  some  of  the  fundamental 
points  of  theology,  which  alarmed  and  con- 
vulsed the  Church,  and  were,  with  their  au- 
thor, condemned  in  numerous  councils.  His 
sentiments  on  the  subject  immediately  under 
consideration,  were  substantially  adopted  by 
Socinus  in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  are  held 
by  the  modern  Socinians.  He  maintained 
that  the  sin  of  the  first  pair  injured  no  one  but 
themselves;  that  their  posterity  have  not  been 
affected  by  it;  and  that  all  infants  are  born  as 
free  from  sin  as  Adam  was  before  his  trans- 
gression. "  Our  first  parents,  (according  to 
his  theory,)  who  sinned  by  eating  the  forbid- 
den fruit,  were  not  distinguished  in  any  essen- 
tial respect  from  those  who  sin  in  after  ages, 
and  our  condition  is  not  the  worse  for  their 
sin;  as  they  were  to  blame  for  yielding  to  a 
temptation  which  they  might  have  resisted; 
so  all  of  us,  by  a  proper  attention  to  culti- 
vating our  natural  powers,  may  maintain  our 
innocence  amidst  the  temptations  with  which 
we  are  surrounded;  and  therefore  we  fall  short 


16  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

of  that  which  it  is  in  our  power  to  do,  if  we  do 
not  yield  a  more  perfect  obedience  to  the  law 
of  God  than  Adam  yielded."*  (See  Note  A.) 
A  modification  of  this  opinion  has  appeared 
in  our  day  among  professedly  orthodox  Chris- 
tians. According  to  this  view,  the  posterity 
of  Adam  are  not  born  with  a  depraved  nature, 
nor  have  infants  any  moral  character  at  all 
prior  to  the  commencement  of  moral  agency. 
But,  although  neither  holy  nor  sinful,  up  to 
that  period,  they  are  placed,  by  a  divine  con- 
stitution, in  such  circumstances  as  to  render  it 
certain  that  they  will  sin  as  soon  as  they  be- 
come moral  agents.  The  principle  which  is 
mainly  relied  upon  to  sustain  this  theory,  is, 
that  morality  can  attach  only  to  acts  of  the 
will — that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a 
moral  disposition,  antecedent  to  the  exercise 
of  the  moral  powers.  (See  note  B.)  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  principle  it  is  maintained 
that  Adam  was  not  created  a  holy  being,  but 
became  holy  by  the  first  act  of  his  will,  in 
which  he  chose  God  as  his  portion.  Nay,  it 
is  (in  perfect  consistency,)  argued  that  even 
the  infant  Jesus  was  not  holy  until  he  became 
a  moral  agent! 

*  Hill's  Lectures  in  Divinity. 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  17 

It  will  be  my  object  to  prove,  in  opposition 
to  the  dogmas  of  this  dangerous  philosophy, 
that  our  Confession  of  Faith  is  correct  in 
asserting  that  "the  same  death  in  sin  and  cor- 
rupted nature,"  which  attached  to  our  first 
parents,  as  the  fruit  of  their  transgression,  are 
"conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation;"  and  that 
their  posterity  are  "  defiled  and  corrupted" 
from  the  womb.  It  is  not  meant,  by  this  lan- 
guage, that  any  of  the  original  faculties  of  the 
soul  are  destroyed.  Man  has  all  the  faculties 
before  regeneration  which  he  has  after  it. 
Nor  is  it  meant  that  depravity  is  a  material 
substance  which  is  infused  into  the  soul;  it  is 
moral,  not  physical  depravity,  of  which  the 
Confession  speaks.  But  it  is  meant,  that  the 
soul  has  lost  its  "  original  righteousness,"  that 
it  is  destitute  of  holiness,  and  that  as  the  ab- 
sence of  light  causes  darkness,  so  the  absence 
of  holiness  causes  mental  darkness,  and  in- 
volves all  the  faculties  and  affections  of  the 
soul  in  disorder.  They  cannot,  in  this  state, 
answer  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  crea- 
ted, of  loving,  serving,  and  honouring  God. 
The  insubordination  and  confusion  which  reign 
2* 


18  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

within,  involve  a  sinful  tendency  to  forsake 
God — a  propensity  to  do  wrong,  which  mani- 
fests itself  with  the  earliest  dawn  of  reason. 

This,  as  I  understand  it,  is  the  orthodox 
doctrine  of  native  depravity.  They  do  not 
hold,  (as  some  have  reported,)  that  there  is  a 
mass  of  corrupt  matter  lodged  in  the  heart, 
which  sends  off  noxious  exhalations  like  a 
dead  body.  But  they  maintain  that  the  soul 
has  entirely  lost  the  image  of  God,  in  which 
it  was  originally  created;  that  there  is  nothing 
pure  or  good  remaining  in  it;  that,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  withdrawment  of  those  special, 
divine  influences,  which  were  given  to  our 
first  parents,  the  proper  balance  of  the  powers 
is  destroyed,  they  have  lost  their  conformity 
to  the  law  of  God,  and  the  holy  dispositions, 
which  were  at  first  implanted  in  the  soul,  have 
given  place  to  sinful  dispositions,  which  are 
the  source  of  all  actual  transgressions. 

With  this  explanation,  I  shall  proceed  to 
prove  the  doctrine.  Our  first  appeal  must  be 
to  the  Scriptures.  This  doctrine  is  taught  in 
our  text;  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is 
flesh. "  The  word  flesh  is  used  in  a  variety 
of  senses  in  the  New  Testament.    Apart  from 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  19 

its  literal  meaning,  it  is  frequently  used  for 
men,  as  in  the  phrases,  "all  flesh,"  "no  flesh," 
&c.  And  frequently  for  human  nature,  with 
the  accessary  ideas  of  weakness  and  corrup- 
tion, or  human  nature  considered  as  corrupt 
and  sinful.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  the  fol- 
lowing passages.  Rom.  vii.  18. — "I  know 
that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,  dwelleth  no 
good  thing."  Rom.  viii.  5,  8. — "  They  that 
are  after  the  flesh  do  mind  the  things  of  the 
flesh." — "They  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot 
please  God."  Gal.  v.  17.— "  For  the  flesh 
lusteth  against  the  Spirit  and  the  Spirit  against 
the  flesh."  The  context  shows  that  this  is 
substantially  its  meaning  in  the  close  of  the 
sentence  under  consideration.  Our  Saviour 
is  speaking  to  Nicodemus  of  that  which  ex- 
cludes men  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven: 
"  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."  Why  not?  Because,  "that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh."  By  the  phrase, 
"  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,"  is  meant, 
that  which  is  born  of  corrupt  nature — of  man 
in  his  depraved  state.  "  Is  flesh" — that  is, 
is  itself  corrupt  or  depraved,  like  its  source. 


20  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

The  word  (  flesh/  in  the  second  clause,  de- 
notes the  opposite  of  '  spirit,'  in  the  close  of 
the  verse.  But  the  word  '  spirit '  there  clearly 
means  that  which  is  spiritual  or  holy — that 
which  is  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  spiritual 
or  holy.  Of  course,  the.  parallel  expression 
means,  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  de- 
praved or  sinful;  in  other  words,  all  men  are 
born  in  a  state  of  depravity. 

This  interpretation  which  is  the  only  simple 
and  obvious  one,  not  only  proves  that  men  are 
depraved,  but  traces  back  their  depravity  to 
their  birth.  That  which  is  produced  by  the 
natural  birth,  is  contrasted  with  the  product 
of  the  spiritual  birth.  And  as  holiness  is 
ascribed  to  the  spiritual  birth  as  its  source,  so 
depravity  is  ascribed  to  the  natural  birth  as 
its  source.  Those  who  reject  one  part  of  this 
interpretation,  ought  to  reject  the  whole;  for 
if  the  passage  does  not  teach  that  men  are 
depraved  by  nature,  it  does  not  teach  that 
they  are  made  holy  in  their  regeneration. 

Another  passage  which  may  be  adduced  in 
support  of  this  doctrine,  is,  Job.  xiv.  4. — 
"  Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  an  un- 
clean? Not  one."     And  chap.  xv.  14,  "What 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  21 

is  man  that  he  should  be  clean?  and  he  which 
is  born  of  a  woman  that  he  should  be  right- 
eous?" The  word  '  righteous '  shows  that  Job 
and  his  frtend  are  not  speaking  here  merely 
of  man's  natural  frailty,  but  of  his  want  of 
moral  purity.  He  springs  from  a  corrupt 
source,  and  is  'born'  'unclean,'  i.  e.  unright- 
eous.    He  is  depraved  from  his  birth. 

Again,  Mark  vii.  20-23.  "That  which 
cometh  out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the  man. 
For  from  within,  out  of  the  heart  of  men, 
proceed  evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications, 
murders,  thefts,  covetousness,  wickedness,  de- 
ceit, lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye,  blasphemy, 
pride,  foolishness:  all  these  evil  things  come 
from  within  and  defile  the  man."  And,  Gen. 
vi.  5.  "And  God  saw  that  the  wickedness  of 
man  was  great  in  the  earth,  and  that  every 
imagination  of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  was 
only  evil  continually."  These  testimonies  to 
the  character  of  man  were  given  by  the  same 
Divine  Being,  more  than  two  thousand  years 
apart.  They  do  not,  it  is  true,  assert  in  so 
many  words,  that  man  is  depraved  from  his 
birth,  but  this  is  strongly  implied.  They 
ascribe  all  his  vile  passions  and  crimes  to  a 


22  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

sinful  heart;  and  affirm  that  "every  imagina- 
tion of  the  thoughts  of  his  heart  is  only  evil 
continually."  The  frightful  catalogue  of  of- 
fences enumerated  by  our  Saviour,  is  a  general 
summary  intended  to  cover  all  outward  trans- 
gressions. It  embraces  the  sins  of  childhood 
and  youth 7  as  well  as  those  of  mature  years; 
and  he  declares  of  them  all,  that  they  spring 
from  the  same  corrupt  source  within.  This 
inward  fountain  of  corruption,  must  have  an 
existence  before  such  streams  can  flow  from 
it.  If  'all  these  evil  things'  'proceed  out  of 
the  heart?  the  heart  itself  must  be  '  despe- 
rately wicked,'  antecedent  to  its  bearing  such 
fruits.  In  this  view,  these  passages  confirm 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity. 

Again,  Ps.  li.  5. — "  Behold  I  was  shapen  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive 
me."  Could  language  express  more  distinctly 
than  this  does,  the  doctrine  we  are  attempting 
to  prove?  The  royal  penitent  overwhelmed 
with  a  sense  of  his  vileness,  does  not  stop 
with  a  confession  of  his  outward  sins,  but  in 
the  exercise  of  true  contrition  goes  back  to 
the  polluted  source  from  which  they  sprung, 
the  original  depravity  of  his  heart.     He  be- 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  23 

moans  the  defilement  of  his  nature;  and  bows 
down  under  the  abasing  consciousness,  that 
he  has  been  a  corrupt  and  depraved  creature 
from  the  very  commencement  of  his  being; 
"Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin 
did  my  mother  conceive  me." 

Would  it  be  believed  that  in  order  to  elude 
the  force  of  this  explicit  testimony  to  the 
native  sinfulness  of  man,  the  opposers  of  this 
doctrine,  both  in  our  own  and  former  times, 
have  resorted  to  the  unworthy  and  absurd 
subterfuge,  that  David  is  referring  here  not  to 
his  own  but  his  mother's  sins!  As  though  a 
man  overwhelmed  as  he  was  with  his  own 
crimes,  would  be  disposed  to  bring  a  mother's 
sins  into  a  solemn  confession  of  his  own! 
And  as  though  filial  reverence  would  not  have 
prevented  it,  had  he  been  tempted  to  do  it! 
Besides,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence, 
that  David's  mother  was  remarkable  for  her 
transgressions;  nor  that  he  was  born  out  of 
'lawful  and  honourable  wedlock.'  The  in- 
terpretation just  named  is  a  calumny,  both 
upon  the  mother  and  the  son;  while  it  treats 
the  sacred  text  with  a  v'olence  which  would 
make  the  Bible  mean  any  thing  or  nothing, 


24  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

according  to  the  prejudice  or  fancy  of  the 
reader. 

Another  proof-text  occurs,  Eph.  ii.  3. — 
"  And  were  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath, 
even  as  others."  The  word  here  translated 
"by  nature/'  means  by  birth.  "We  who  are 
Jews  by  nature  and  not  sinners  of  the  Gen- 
tiles." Men  are  "  children  of  wrath  "  u  by 
nature,"  i.  e.  they  are  under  the  wrath  of  God 
from  their  birth.  Why  they  are  so,  is  else- 
where stated;  they  belong  to  a  condemned 
race — a  race  upon  which  sentence  of  condem- 
nation has  been  passed  on  account  of  the  sin 
of  the  first  man,  their  covenant-head.  The 
fact  that  they  are  so,  implies  that  they  inherit 
a  depraved  nature.  The  interpretation  which 
makes  this  text,  and  the  one  previously  cited, 
mean  merely  that  men  will  become  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath  as  soon  as  they  are  old  enough 
to  commit  actual  sin,  is  a  striking  example  of 
the  extreme  to  which  men  will  go  in  pervert- 
ing the  simplest  scriptural  statements,  when 
they  have  a  theory  to  support. 

Again  we  may  refer  to  Rom.  v.  12-21. 
The  design  of  the  Apostle  in  this  passage  is 
to  compare  the  method  by  which  men  are 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  25 

justified  through  the  work  of  Christ,  with  the 
mode  by  which  they  were  brought  into  a  state 
of  condemnation  by  the  sin  of  Adam.  He  is 
not  therefore  treating  primarily  of  native  de- 
pravity, but  this  doctrine  is  involved  in  his 
argument.  He  asserts  that  "  death  has  passed 
upon  all  men  for  that  all  have  sinned  " — that 
"by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation" — and  that  "by  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 
The  meaning  of  these  declarations,  is,  that  on 
account  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  his  posterity  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners;  they  are 
under  condemnation;  by  that  "one  man's  of- 
fence" death  reigns  over  them.  This  cer- 
tainly implies  that  men  are  depraved  from  the 
birth.  If  they  are  from  that  time  under  con- 
demnation (as  we  are  here  expressly  taught,) 
they  must  be  destitute  of  those  moral  qualities 
which  God  approves,  and  possessed  of  a  cha- 
racter at  variance  with  his  holy  law;  that  is, 
they  must  have  a  corrupt  nature. 

The  Scripture  testimony  now  cited  is  suffi- 
cient, it  is  believed,  to  prove  the  doctrine  of 
native  depravity,  but  it  may  be  well  to  adduce 
a  few  additional  arguments. 
3 


26  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

I.  Infant  Baptism  is  a  proof  of  this 
doctrine. — Would  this  ordinance  have  been 
instituted  if  this  doctrine  were  not  true?  Has 
it  any  significancy  if  infants  are  not  depraved? 
The  Scriptures  represent  baptism  as  implying 
the  moral  pollution  of  the  subject.  Ananias 
said  to  Saul,  "Arise  and  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  thy  sins."  Peter  says,  "  The  like  figure 
whereunto,  baptism,  doth  also  now  save  us,  not 
the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the 
answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God." 
Baptism  is  a  seal  of  the  new  covenant — a 
sacrament  of  the  new  dispensation.  It  is  ad- 
ministered in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  It  recognsies  the  Father 
as  the  author  of  salvation,  the  Son  as  our  Re- 
deemer, and  the  Holy  Spirit  as  our  Sanctifier. 
But  it  is  manifest  that  pure  and  innocent 
beings  stand  in  no  need  of  a  Redeemer  or 
Sanctifier.  Why,  then,  if  infants  have  not  a 
depraved  nature,  should  they  be  baptized? 
Surely  the  ordinance  is  nothing  less  than 
solemn  trifling  on  this  view.  Nor  does  it 
meet  the  difficulty  at  all  to  say,  that  "they 
will  become  sinners  by  and  by,  and  therefore 
it  is  proper  to  baptize  them."     For,  in  the 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  27 

first  place,  according  to  the  theory  alluded  to, 
they  may  never  become  sinners,  since  they 
may  die  before  moral  agency  commences. 
And  in  the  second  place,  the  Bible  gives  us 
no  warrant  to  baptize  innocent  beings,  on  the 
ground  that  they  may  sin  at  a  future  time. 
Surely  consistency  requires  that  those  who 
adopt  these  sentiments  should  withold  their 
children  from  baptism  until  they  can  distin- 
guish between  good  and  evil.  (See  note  C.) 
II.  Native  depravity  is  proved  by  the 

SCRIPTURE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    NECESSITY  OP 

regeneration. — "  Except  a  man  be  born 
again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God." 
All  sound  commentators  understand  this  as  a 
universal  proposition,  extending  to  the  whole 
race,  and  to  every  individual  of  the  race. 
They  regard  it  as  tantamount  to  a  declaration, 
that  no  descendant  of  Adam  (by  ordinary 
generation)  can  enter  heaven,  except  he  be 
regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  this  be 
its  meaning,  then,  obviously,  infants  need  to 
be  regenerated;  and  if  they  need  to  be  rege- 
nerated, they  are  depraved;  for  nothing  but 
depravity  can  create  a  necessity  for  regene 
ration. 


28  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

And  farther,  it  deserves  notice,  that  if  in- 
fants are  susceptible  of  regeneration,  that  is, 
susceptible  of  being  made  holy,  this  proves 
the  possibility  at  least  of  their  being  sinful 
prior  to  that  change.  The  popular  philosophy 
of  the  day  denies  this.  It  contends  that  there 
cannot  exist  sinful  dispositions  or  a  sinful  na- 
ture antecedent  to  moral  action.  Of  course, 
as  there  is  no  greater  difficulty  in  a  metaphy- 
sical view,  in  the  existence  of  sinful  than  holy 
dispositions,  apart  from  moral  action,  it  fol- 
lows, that  if  an  infant  may  not  have  a  corrupt 
and  sinful  nature,  it  cannot  by  any  process 
acquire  a  holy  nature — that  is,  it  cannot  be 
regenerated.  And  since,  "without  holiness 
no  man  can  see  the  Lord,"  infants  cannot  on 
this  view  be  saved.  This  is  the  legitimate 
conclusion  to  which  we  are  driven  by  the 
tenets  of  this  pernicious  philosophy.  (See 
note  D.) 

III.  Native  depravity  may  be  proved 

BY  A  REFERENCE  TO  THE  WORK  OF  REDEMP- 
TION. Our  Saviour  tells  us  that  "  he  came  to 
seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost"  He 
died  to  save  sinners.  If  infants  are  not  the 
subjects  of  a  sinful   nature,  if  they  are  not 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  29 

condemned  and  lost,  they  need  no  Saviour. 
"Who  ever  perished,  being  innocent?"  God 
will  not  deal  unjustly  with  them.  If  they 
are  not  depraved,  they  will  not  be  punished 
hereafter. 

But  supposing  them  to  be  neither  holy  nor 
sinful,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  they  can  be 
benefitted  by  the  atonement,  which  was  made 
exclusively  for  sinners.  It  must  in  consist- 
ency be  admitted  on  this  view  (as  it  some- 
times has  been,)  that  infants  need  no  Saviour; 
(See  note  E.)  and  then  it  follows  (assuming 
that  they  are  saved)  that  there  will  be  two 
distinct  classes  in  heaven,  those  who  have 
been  saved  through  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
those  who  have  been  accepted  on  the  ground 
of  their  own  innocence.  A  conclusion  like 
this  deserves  no  refutation.  Those  who  re- 
ceive with  docility  the  instructions  of  the 
Bible,  not  only  believe  that  infants  may  be 
saved  through  the  atonement,  but  they  find  in 
this  fact,  strong  confirmation  of  the  humili- 
ating truth  that  they  are  depraved  from  the 
womb. 

IV.  Native  depravity  is  proved  by  the 

SUFFERINGS  AND  DEATH  OF    INFANTS. "  The 

*3 


30  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

wages  of  sin  is  death."  The  Scriptures  repre- 
sent all  suffering  as  resulting  from  the  curse 
pronounced  upon  our  first  parents.  And  they 
represent  natural  death  in  various  passages  as 
a  penal  evil.  Thus  they  say,  "We  are  con- 
sumed by  thine  anger;"  "We  pass  away  in 
thy  wrath;"  "The  sting  of  death  is  sin;" 
"By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and 
death  by  sin,  and  so  death  passed  upon  all 
men,  for  that  all  have  sinned."  These  pas- 
sages furnish  the  only  satisfactory  solution  of 
the  sufferings  of  infants.  It  is  incredible  that 
they  should  be  subjected  to  so  much  pain  and 
misery  under  the  government  of  a  righteous 
God,  if  they  did  not  belong  to  a  condemned 
race,  and  were  not  the  subjects  of  a  depraved 
nature. 

V.  Another  proof  of  this  doctrine  is  fur- 
nished by  the  the  early  indications  of  de- 
pravity in  all  children. — What  stronger 
argument  can  be  demanded  in  support  of  this 
doctrine,  than  the  fact  that  all  children  begin 
to  sin  as  soon  as  they  can  sin?  And  what 
satisfactory  explanation  can  be  given,  if  we 
reject  this  doctrine,  of  the  fretfulness,  and  im 
patience,   and    selfishness,  and    anger,  which 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  31 

are  so  frequently  exhibited  even  in  infancy  ? 
"I  sinned,7'  says  Augustine,  "  in  my  in- 
fancy; and  although  I  do  not  remember  what 
I  then  did,  I  learn  it  from  the  conduct  of 
others  at  the  same  age.  I  discovered  dispo- 
sitions which  would  be  blamed  in  me  now, 
and  which,  when  we  grow  up,  we  are  at 
pains  to  eradicate.  I  sought  with  tears  what 
it  would  have  been  improper  to  give  me;  I 
was  indignant  at  my  superiors  and  my  pa- 
rents, because  they  would  not  comply  with 
my  wishes,  and  attempted  to  avenge  myself 
by  striking  them.  I  have  seen  (he  adds)  a 
child  that  could  not  speak,  full  of  envy,  and 
turn  pale  with  anger  at  another  that  was 
nursed  along  with  it." 

This  humbling  confession  of  an  eminent 
servant  of  God,  will  find  confirmation  in  the 
experience  of  every  parent.  Some  children, 
it  is  true,  are  more  amiable  than  others,  but 
with  the  exception  of  the  very  few,  who,  like 
Jeremiah,  and  John  the  Baptist,  are  sanctified 
from  the  womb,  they  all  manifest  wrong 
tempers  at  a  very  early  period. 

Reason  and  Scripture  unite  in  deciding  that 
there  must  be  some  inborn  depravity  to  pro- 


32  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

duce  these  effects.  This  will  be  still  more 
apparent  when  we  mention, 

VI.  As  another  proof  of  the  doctrine  under 
consideration,  the  universal  prevalence 
of  sin  in  the  world. — The  testimony  of  the 
Bible  on  this  subject,  is,  that  "  there  is  none 
righteous,  no,  not  one:"  that  "all  are  gone 
out  of  the  way,  and  are  become  unprofitable;" 
that  "  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God."  The  whole  history  of  the 
race  is  a  commentarj^  on  this  representation. 
And  the  world  is  at  this  moment  (as  it  has 
ever  been)  so  full  of  the  dreadful  fruits  of  sin, 
that  it  is  presumed  no  candid  person  will 
question  the  fidelity  of  the  picture. 

How  is  this  fact  to  be  accounted  for?  How 
happens  it  that  all  men  have  become  sinners 
— that  all  begin  to  go  astray  as  soon  as  they 
acquire  the  use  of  their  rational  faculties?  To 
say,  that  it  is  owing  to  bad  example,  is  only  to 
explain  the  thing  by  itself.  For  the  question 
returns,  why  is  it  that  a  bad  example  prevails 
universally?  Or  if  it  be  alleged  that  this  is 
not  the  case,  that  there  are  multitudes  of 
parents  who  set  a  good  example  before  their 
children;  I  ask,  again,  why  is  it  that  even  the 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  33 

children  of  such  parents  begin  to  sin  with  the 
first  dawn  of  reason,  and  persevere  in  sinning 
till  they  die,  unless  God  is  pleased  to  give 
them  repentance?  Surely  these  things  would 
not  be  unless  there  were  a  predisposition  to  do 
wrong,  a  proneness  to  sin  antecedent  to  actual 
sin,  and  producing  it.  No  other  cause  but  a 
depraved  and  sinful  nature,  as  the  common 
inheritance  of  the  race,  is  adequate  to  account 
for  the  universal  prevalence  of  sin. 

VII.   Finally,  it   is  no  small  confirmation 
of  the  doctrine  of  this  essay,  that  it  has 

IN  EVERY  AGE  RECEIVED  THE  ASSENT  OF 
THE   LARGEST    AND    PUREST    PORTION  OF  THE 

christian  church.  It  was  held  by  all  the 
Reformers.  It  is  incorporated  in  the  Augs- 
burg, French,  Belgic,  Bohemian,  Helvetic, 
Savoy,  Moravian,  Scotch,  and  Westminster 
Confessions,  in  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  the  Saybrook  Platform.  (See 
Note  F.)  And  moreover,  it  is  believed  by 
the  great  mass  of  sincere  Christians  in  every 
Protestant  sect.  There  is  a  strong  presump- 
tion, that  a  doctrine  is  true  which  is  found  in 
the  Bible  by  plain  readers,  whose  minds  are 
unperverted    by  metaphysical  subtleties,  and 


34  ORIGINAL      SIN. 

who  study  the  Scriptures,  not  for  controversy, 
but  profit.  That  this  class  of  persons  generally 
understand  the  Bible  as  teaching  that  children 
are  born  with  a  depraved  nature,  will  not,  it 
is  presumed,  be  denied. 

For  all  these  reasons,  then,  and  others 
which  need  not  be  mentioned,  we  maintain 
the  doctrine  of  native  depravity.  If  the  doc- 
trine is  not  susceptible  of  proof,  it  would  be 
difficult  to  prove  any  thing,  either  from 
Scripture,  or  observation.  The  main  objec- 
tion urged  against  it  in  our  day,  is  a  philo- 
sophical dogma.  It  is  affirmed,  (as  already 
stated)  that  morality  can  attach  only  to  acts  of 
choice,  that  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
holy  or  sinful  principles  anterior  to  moral  ac- 
tion, and  that  therefore  depravity  commences 
only  with  moral  agency;  up  to  that  period  a 
child  has  no  more  moral  character  than  a 
brute.  I  shall  not  stop  to  examine  this  theory 
in  detail:  if  I  have  succeeded  in  establishing 
the  true  doctrine,  its  fallacy  has  already  been 
shown.  It  may  be  well,  however,  to  observe 
that  the  scriptural  statement,  that  "  sin  is  the 
transgression  of  the  law,"  gives  no  counte- 


NATIVE    DEPRAVITY.  35 

nance  to  this  theory.  For  the  word  rendered 
'  transgression  of  the  law/  is  of  much  more 
extensive  signification  than  that  phrase,  and 
means  <  want  of  conformity  to  the  law;'  and 
this  is  just  as  applicable  to  dispositions  or 
principles,  as  to  actions.  If  a  malicious  act 
be  sinful,  a  malicious  disposition  cannot  be 
less  so.  Nay,  it  is  what  lies  back  of  an  act  of 
the  will,  that  gives  it  its  character,  whe- 
ther good  or  bad,  holy  or  sinful.  A  holy 
disposition  makes  the  actions  which  flow 
from  it  holy;  and  a  sinful  disposition  the  re- 
verse. 

The  views  which  have  now  been  presented, 
suggest  several  observations  of  a  practical  char- 
acter, with  which  I  shall  conclude  the  first 
part  of  this  dissertation. 

First.  The  doctrine  of  native  depravity  is 
a  doctrine  of  great  importance. 

It  is  a  mistake,  to  suppose  that  this  is 
a  merely  speculative  subject,  in  relation  to 
which  men  may  safely  hold  any  opinions  they 
please.  No  error  is  harmless,  in  questions  of 
a  moral  nature  ;  and  that  it  cannot  be  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference  what  sentiments  are  held 


36  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

on  this  subject,  is  evident  from  several  con- 
siderations. 

One  of  these  is  the  prominence  assigned  to 
it  in  the  Scriptures.  Another  arises  out  of 
the  very  nature  of  the  case.  Surely  if  any 
question  be  important  to  us,  it  is  the  question, 
what  is  our  own  native  character  and  condi- 
tion? Are  we  depraved  or  holy  or  without 
moral  character  altogether?  Are  we  in  favour 
with  God  or  under  condemnation?  Again, 
the  views  which  men  form  on  this  subject 
usually  modify  their  views  on  all  the  distinc- 
tive truths  of  the  Gospel.  The  Gospel  cannot 
be  understood  unless  we  understand  the  evils 
which  it  was  designed  to  meet.  That  evil 
which  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  others,  is  the 
depraved  nature  with  which  men  are  born. 
And  ecclesiastical  history  shows,  that  when- 
ever the  doctrine  of  native  depravity  has 
been  abandoned,  other  leading  doctrines  have 
fallen  with  it.  Thus  it  was  with  Socinus,  and 
before  him,  with  Pelagius;  and  thus  it  is  with 
errorists  in  our  own  day.  Defection  from  the 
faith  has  usually  commenced  here.  And  it  is 
easy  to  see  how.  If  men  are  not  depraved, 
there  is  no  absolute    necessity  either  for  an 


NATIVE    DEPRAVITY.  37 

atonement  or  for  regeneration.  The  absence 
of  depravity  implies  either  positive  holiness 
or  plenary  ability  to  comply  with  the  de- 
mands of  the  law.  If  men  possess  this  ability, 
and  especially  if  they  possess  it  without  any 
wrong  bias,  why  may  they  not  comply  from 
the  outset  with  all  the  requisitions  of  the  law, 
and  thus  acquire  a  title  to  heaven  by  their 
own  works.  Why  must  they  depend  on  the 
merits  of  another  being  for  salvation?  Why 
may  they  not  be  justified  on  the  ground  of 
their  own  righteousness?  These  questions  are 
not  mere  rhetorical  figures.  The  principles 
on  which  they  bear,  constitute,  as  every  one 
knows,  a  portion  of  the  Socinian  creed.  And 
toward  these  principles,  every  departure  from 
the  true  doctrine  of  native  depravity  tends. 
Wherever  this  doctrine  is  relinquished,  the 
necessity  of  regeneration  is  either  openly  de- 
nied, or  the  new  birth  dwindles  down  into  a 
mere  reformation  of  manners  or  a  decent  ob- 
servance of  the  forms  of  religion;  and  reliance 
upon  Christ  for  salvation,  comes  to  mean  no- 
thing more  than  this,  that  our  crude  and  im- 
perfect works  are  mingled  with  the  merits  of 
4 


38  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

his  infinitely  precious  sacrifice  as  the  ground 
of  our  acceptance  with  God;  that  is,  Christ 
does  not  save  the  sinner,  but  helps  the  sinner 
to  save  himself.  There  is  but  one  step  more 
to  downright  Socinianism. 

To  show  that  the  importance  of  this  doc- 
trine has  not  been  over  estimated,  I  will  quote 
a  few  remarks  from  Professor  Neander,  of 
Berlin,  the  most  learned  and  profound  eccle- 
siastical historian  of  the  present  age.  He  is 
speaking  of  the  controversy  on  this  subject 
between  Augustine  and  Cselestius,  the  coad- 
jutor of  Pelagius  in  the  fifth  century.  "  Nor 
did  Augustine  (he  observes)  concede  to  Cse- 
lestius,  that  this  controversy  was  so  unimpor- 
tant in  its  bearings  on  Christian  theology. 
Believing  that  the  doctrine  of  a  Redeemer 
and  a  redemption,  in  which  the  essence  of 
Christianity  consists,  presupposes  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  need  of  redemption;  he  held  that 
the  doctrine  of  redemption  is  therefore  closely 
connected  with  that  of  the  depravity  of  hu- 
man nature,  and  consequently  with  the  doc- 
trine respecting  the  first  sin  and  its  conse- 
quences; and  that  the  former  fundamental 
doctrine  loses  all  its   significance   unless  the 


NATIVE    DEPRAVITY.  39 

latter  doctrines  are  presupposed.  In  the  con- 
trast between  Adam  and  Christ,  therefore, 
consists  the  very  essence  of  Christianity  " 

"If  we  confine  ourselves  (Neander  pro- 
ceeds) to  the  points  which  were  stated  by  the 
two  parties  themselves,  and  of  which  they  had 
formed  distinct  conceptions,  it  must  appear 
that  this  controversy  arose  from  the  different 
modes  of  considering  human  nature  in  its  pre- 
sent state;  or  rather,  from  the  different  views 
entertained  respecting  the  relation  of  the  pre- 
sent moral  condition  of  mankind  to  the  sin  of 
Adam.  In  every  thing  else  which  came  into 
discussion — the  different  views  entertained  as 
to  man's  need  of  assistance,  as  to  the  nature  of 
redemption,  as  to  the  work  which  Christ  per- 
formed, and  the  influence  of  Christianity,  as 
to  the  object  and  efficacy  of  Baptism,  in  short, 
every  point  debated  between  the  two  parties 
was  intimately  connected  with  this  fundamen- 
tal difference.  Augustine  always  came  back 
at  last  to  this,  that  man  is  in  a  state  of  corrup- 
tion; and  this,  on  the  other  hand,  was  always 
the  point  to  which  the  disavowal  of  the  Pela- 
gians especially  referred."* 

*  Biblical  Repository. 


40  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

To  this  quotation,  might  be  added  the  con- 
current testimony  of  the  ablest  theologians 
both  of  Europe  and  America.  They  have 
with  great  unanimity  considered  the  doctrine 
of  native  depravity,  as  a  primary  and  fun- 
damental doctrine — one  that  could  not  be 
abandoned  without  jeoparding  all  that  is 
worth  contending  for  in  the  Gospel.  (See 
Note  G.) 

In  the  second  place,  we  may  learn  from 
this  discussion  the  dreadful  evil  of  sin.  Sin 
alone  has  reduced  our  race  to  its  present  de- 
plorable condition. 

If  we  are  born  depraved  and  corrupt,  if 

"  Soon  as  we  draw  our  infant  breath, 
The  seeds  of  sin  grow  up  for  death," 

sin  is  the  cause  of  it.  What  conceptions  must 
we  form  of  the  evil  of  sin  in  God's  sight, 
when  we  consider  that  condemnation  has 
passed  upon  all  men  for  the  "one  offence"  of 
the  first  man;  that  his  one  sin  has  involved 
all  his  posterity  in  guilt  and  wretchedness, 
and  has  been  the  prolific  source  of  all  the 
pain,  and   sorrow,  and   crime,  and  wo,  and 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  41 

death,  which  have  filled  the  earth  for  six 
thousand  years.  Surely  it  is  an  evil  and  a 
bitter  thing  to  sin  against  God. 

Thirdly.  This  doctrine  ought  to  humble  us. 

Revolting  as  is  the  picture  of  human  nature 
which  has  been  drawn,  it  is  an  unexaggerated 
picture  of  our  own  hearts,  and  incorrect  only 
because  inadequate.  If  it  is  proper  for  the 
children  of  an  intemperate  father  to  feel  hum- 
bled on  account  of  his  misconduct,  it  becomes 
us  all  to  abase  ourselves  under  the  conscious- 
ness that  we  are  the  degenerate  offspring  of 
an  apostate  head. 

It  should  humble  us  also  to  reflect  that 
even  in  our  infancy  we  manifested  symptoms 
of  depravity,  and  that  with  the  earliest  exer- 
cise of  our  rational  faculties,  we  begun  to 
oppose  the  authority  and  to  abuse  the  good- 
ness of  that  beneficient  Being  who  had  given 
us  an  existence  and  supplied  us  with  number- 
less comforts. 

Fourthly.  This  subject  exhibits  in  an 
affecting  manner  the  responsibilities  of 
parents. 

The  depraved  nature  which  our  children 
possess,  with  all  its  sad  concomitants  of  pain, 
4* 


42  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

and  wo,  and  condemnation,  they  inherit  from 
us.  What  parent  can  contemplate  this  fact 
without  emotion?  Who  that  is  not  dead  to 
sensibility,  can  be  unmoved  when  he  reflects 
that  he  has  transmitted  such  a  legacy  to  his 
children?  Who  does  not  see  that  if  there  be 
any  one  duty  which  a  parent  owes  his  chil- 
dren, it  is  that  of  using  every  means  within 
his  reach,  to  subdue  this  corruption  and  rescue 
them  from  its  thraldom? 

What  then  is  to  be  thought  of  parents  who 
never  pray  for  their  children — who  never  in- 
struct them  in  the  Scriptures — who  never 
converse  with  them  about  their  souls — who 
never  try  to  direct  their  minds  to  the  Saviour, 
but  whose  whole  example  goes  to  increase 
their  natural  blindness  and  depravity,  and 
to  lead  them  farther  and  farther  from  God. 
Should  this  book  fall  into  the  hands  of  such 
a  parent,  suffer  me  to  ask  him,  whether 
this  is  parental  affection?  Is  this  parental 
kindness?  Is  this  treating  your  children  as 
they  ought  to  be  treated?  True,  it  may 
satisfy  them  now;  it  may  be  the  very  course 
which  they  love,  and  they  will  not  now  re- 
proach you  for  it.     But  may  not  a  day  come 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  43 

when  they  will  reproach  you?  Will  they 
always  thank  you  for  letting  them  grow  up 
in  the  neglect  of  religion?  Have  you  no  ap- 
prehension that  a  period  may  arrive,  when 
they  will  say  to  you,  "Why  did  you  not 
admonish  us  of  the  consequences  of  sin  in 
childhood?  Why  did  you  not  endeavour  to 
implant  religious  principles  in  our  minds,  at 
that  tender  age  when  you  were  doing  so  much 
to  mould  our  characters?  Why  did  you  not, 
when  we  looked  to  you  in  confiding  affection 
for  instruction,  direct  us  to  the  Saviour  of 
sinners?  Why  did  you  not  tell  us  of  God 
and  redemption — of  the  judgment,  and  heaven 
and  hell?     Why  did  you  not 

1  Allure  to  brighter  worlds  and  lead  the  way  V 

Why  did  you  bestow  all  your  attention  upon 
our  frail  bodies,  and  leave  our  souls  to  perish?" 

May  God  preserve  both  the  author  and  his 
readers,  from  the  dreadful  anguish  of  ever 
listening  to  questions  like  these. 

Finally,  What  reason  have  we,  in  the  light 
of  this  subject,  to  bless  God  for  a  Saviour? 

God    has    not    left   our    race   in    hopeless 


44  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

misery.  The  "  second  Adam  "  has  been  sent 
to  repair  the  ruins  of  the  fall.  "Where  sin 
abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound;  that 
as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death,  even  so  might 
grace  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eter- 
nal life  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

This  language  is  full  of  consolation  to  pa- 
rents who  have  been  called  to  follow  infant 
children  to  the  grave.  The  Bible  says  very 
little  respecting  the  future  condition  of  in- 
fants; but  there  is  strong  ground  to  hope  for 
their  salvation.  As  by  virtue  of  their  con- 
nexion with  Adam  they  are  condemned  with- 
out any  actual  sin  of  their  own,  (agreeably  to 
Rom.  v.  18,  "By  the  offence  of  one,  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,")  so 
we  are  authorized  to  conclude  that  they  will 
be  saved  through  the  atonement  of  Christ, 
without  the  exercise  of  faith  and  repentance. 
Less  than  this  can  hardly  be  inferred,  either 
from  the  general  representations  of  the  Divine 
character  in  the  Scriptures,  or  from  such  ex- 
pressions as  these — "  by  the  obedience  of  one 
shall  many  be  made  righteous;"  "by  the 
righteousness  of  one  the  free  gift  came  upon 
all  men  unto  justification  of  life."     And  in 


NATIVE  DEPRAVITY.  45 

relation  to  the  children  of  Christian  parents 
the  case  is  still  stronger;  for  they  are  included 
in  that  gracious  covenant  which  God  has  esta- 
blished with  his  people,  and  "  with  their  seed 
after  them."  To  these  considerations  it  may- 
be added  that  the  language  of  David  on  the 
death  of  his  infant  child,  (2  Sam.  xii.  23,) 
gives,  on  one  interpretation,  (not  perhaps  the 
best  one)  confirmation  to  this  opinion:  "I 
shall  go  to  him,  but  he  shall  not  return 
to  me." 

Let  me  urge  every  reader  of  this  essay, 
then,  to  seek  an  interest  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  His  blood  can  cleanse  us  both  from 
original  and  actual  sin. 

"  No  bleeding  bird,  nor  bleeding  beast, 
No  hyssop-branch,  nor  sprinkling  priest, 
Nor  running  brook,  nor  flood,  nor  sea, 
Can  wash  the  dismal  stain  away." 

But  in  Christ  we  may  find  full  and  com- 
plete deliverance  from  its  power  and  pollu- 
tion. He  is  made  unto  his  people,  "  wisdom, 
and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and  re- 
demption." They  are  "  washed,  and  sancti- 
fied, and  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 


46  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  And 
these  exalted  privileges  will  be  ours,  if  in 
humble  dependence  on  his  grace,  we  commit 
ourselves  to  him  as  our  Lord  and  Redeemer. 


PART   II 


IMPUTATION. 

I  have  attempted,  in  the  former  part  of  this 
dissertation,  to  exhibit  the  scripture  doctrine 
of  native  depravity.  It  has  been  proved, 
if  I  mistake  not,  that  all  men  have  inherited 
a  corrupt  and  sinful  nature — that  they  are 
born  with  depraved  dispositions,  which  are 
the  source  of  all  actual  transgressions.  It  is 
a  natural  and  reasonable  inquiry,  how  comes 
it  to  pass  that  men  are  brought  into  the  world 
in  this  miserable  condition?  Why  is  it  that 
they  are  born  under  the  frown  of  God,  and 
commence  their  existence  under  these  strong 
and  affecting  marks  of  his  displeasure?  To 
these  questions  the  Bible  furnishes  the  only 
answer;  "By  the  offence  of  one,  judgment 
came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;"  that  is, 
condemnation  has   passed  upon   all   men  on 


48  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

account  of  the  sin  of  one  man.  The  same 
truth  is  stated  in  our  Standards,  thus: — "The 
covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a  public 
person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his  pos- 
terity; all  mankind  descending  from  him  by 
ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell 
with  him  in  that  first  transgression."  Again, 
"  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man 
fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin, 
the  want  of  that  righteousness  wherein  he 
was  created,  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature, 
whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually 
good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that 
continually;  which  is  commonly  called  origi- 
nal sin,  and  from  which  do  proceed  all  actual 
transgressions."  (Larg.  Cat.  Q.  22  and  25.) 
And,  again,  "  They  being  the  root  of  all  man- 
kind, the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and 
the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation."  {Conf. 
Faith,  Ch.  VI.) 

It  will  be  my  object  to  prove  the  doctrine 
contained  in  these  quotations:  viz. — that  the 


IMPUTATION.  49 

POSTERITY  OP  ADAM  ARE  CONDEMNED  ON  AC- 
COUNT OF  HIS  SIN. 

Before  entering  upon  the  discussion,  I  wish 
to  make  three  preliminary  remarks. 

In  the  first  place,  as  the  Scriptures  give  us 
the  only  correct  account  of  the  creation  and 
fall  of  man,  so  we  are  to  receive  with  implicit 
confidence  their  statement  of  the  effects  pro- 
duced by  the  fall,  upon  the  race.  We  are  of 
course  to  employ  our  rational  faculties  in  in- 
terpreting the  Bible,  but  we  have  no  right  to 
wrest  the  Bible  from  its  simple  and  obvious 
meaning,  in  order  to  make  it  accord  with  our 
pre-conceived  opinions. 

In  the  second  place,  let  it  be  remembered 
that  the  fact  that  the  whole  race  have  been 
involved  in  ruin  by  the  sin  of  the  first  man, 
presses  with  equal  weight  upon  all  other 
theories  (excepting  that  of  the  Socinians  and 
Pelagians,  who  deny  the  fact,)  as  upon  the 
doctrine  of  our  Standards.  It  may  be  denied 
that  Adam  was  the  federal  head  of  his  pos- 
terity, and  that  a  covenant  was  made  with 
him  in  which  they  were  included,  and  for  his 
violation  of  which  they  are  condemned;  but, 
the  fact  still  remains.  Children  are  born  to 
5 


50  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

an  inheritance  of  sorrow.  Millions  of  them 
die  in  infancy.  And  those  who  live,  begin 
to  sin  as  soon  as  they  become  moral  agents. 
This  state  of  things,  every  one  must  admit,  has 
been  brought  about  in  some  way  by  the  apos- 
tacy  of  Adam.  The  rejection  of  the  Calvin- 
istic  doctrine  as  to  the  mode  in  which  his 
apostacy  has  produced  it,  neither  sets  aside 
the  fact  nor  explains  it. 

In  the  third  place,  notwithstanding  the 
hostility  which  many  persons  feel  to  the  doc- 
trine of  our  church  on  this  subject,  it  may 
be  the  case  that  this  doctrine  is  really  more 
honourable  to  the  Divine  character  (as  well 
as  more  agreeable  to  Scripture)  than  any  of 
the  theories  to  which  it  is  opposed.  The 
main  reason,  it  is  confidently  believed,  why 
it  is  supposed  to  involve  injustice,  is  that  it  is 
misconceived.  Great  pains  have  been  taken, 
of  late  years  to  caricature  'the  doctrine,  and 
hold  it  up  to  ridicule;  and  that  by  individuals 
who  have  solemnly  given  their  assent  to  it. 
It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that  it  should 
be  so  much  misunderstood,  and  being  misun- 
derstood, that  it  should  be  denied.  That 
there    are    some   things    about    the    doctrine 


IMPUTATION.  51 

which  are  mysterious,  is  readily  conceded. 
It  is  a  mystery  that  God  should  have  per- 
mitted our  first  parents  to  fall,  and  by  their 
fall,  to  bring  an  endless  train  of  evils  upon 
their  descendants.  But  that  He  has  in  his 
infinite  wisdom  permitted  it,  no  one  but  a 
Socinian  or  Pelagian  will  deny.  Whether  these 
evils  are  inflicted  upon  the  race  in  mere  sove- 
reignty, or  as  the  penalty  of  a  broken  cove- 
nant formed  with  our  first  parents,  is  a  ques- 
tion to  be  determined  by  the  word  of  God. 

I  shall  first  explain,  and  then  attempt  to 
prove,  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  Scripture 
doctrine  on  this  subject.  This  doctrine,  (as 
already  stated  in  the  language  of  our  Stand- 
ards,) is  in  brief  as  follows: 

God  was  pleased  to  make  a  covenant  with 
Adam,  as  the  federal  head  and  representative 
of  his  race,  in  which  he  promised  life  to  him 
and  his  seed  on  condition  of  his  obedience, 
and  threatened  death  in  case  of  disobedience. 
Adam  having  violated  the  covenant,  incurred 
its  penalty;  and  in  virtue  of  his  representative 
character,  the  same  condemnation  to  which  he 
was  subjected,  passed  upon  his  posterity;  they 
were  regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  the 
ground  of  his  offence.     Accordingly  the  gra- 


52  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

cious  influences  which  were  withdrawn  from 
him  when  he  sinned,  are  withheld  from  them, 
so  that  they  come  into  the  world  wTith  a  de- 
praved nature,  and  subject  to  suffering  and 
death.  (See  Note  H.)  This  is  the  doctrine, 
stripped  of  technical  terms,  and  presented  in 
familiar  language.  When  our  Standards  say 
that  the  posterity  of  Adam  "sinned  in  him 
and  fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgression;" 
they  do  not  mean  that  all  mankind  constituted 
one  moral  person  in  Adam,  so  that  his  sin 
was  actually  and  personally  the  sin  of  each 
of  his  descendants.  Such  a  thing  involves  a 
metaphysical  absurdity.  It  is  contradicted 
also  by  every  man's  consciousness.  I  am  not 
more  certain  of  my  existence  than  I  am  that  I 
did  not  put  forth  my  hand  and  pluck  the  for- 
bidden fruit.  Furthermore,  this  construction 
is  inconsistent  with  the  context.  The  answer 
in  which  this  statement  occurs,  runs  thus: 
"The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam  as  a 
public  person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his 
posterity;  all  mankind  descending  from  him 
by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him  and  fell 
with  him  in  that  first  transgression."  How 
did  they  sin  in  him?  Not  literally,  surely; 
not  as  being  personally  one  with  him.     Fo)^. 


IMPUTATION.  53 

on  this  view,  the  covenant  was  made  directly 
with  the  whole  race,  and  not,  as  here  asserted, 
"  with  Adam"  "for  his  posterity."  The  state- 
ment is  as  lucid  as  language  can  make  it,  that 
Adam  entered  into  a  covenant  as  their  repre- 
sentative; and  of  course  it  was  only  on  the 
ground  of  his  representative  relation  to  them, 
that  they  could  be  said  to  "sin  in  him  and  fall 
with  him." 

Again,  as  this  doctrine  implies  no  personal 
oneness  between  Adam  and  his  race,  neither 
does  it  involve  any  transfer  of  his  moral 
character  or  acts  to  them.  The  criminality 
of  my  act  can  never  become  another  man's. 
So  the  criminality  of  Adam's  act  could  not 
pass  over  to  his  posterity.  "  But  does  not  the 
Confession  say,  that  the  guilt  of  his  sin  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity?"  It  does.  But  the 
word  "guilt"  means  in  its  constant  theological 
usage,  not  moral  turpitude  or  criminality,  bat 
liability  to  punishment.  In  this  sense  the 
old  writers  frequently  speak  of  the  Saviour  as 
"  guilty  of  our  sins,"  meaning  merely  that  he 
was  liable  to  the  penalty  of  the  law  on  ac- 
count of  our  sins;  not  by  any  means  that  the 
pollution  or  the  ill-desert  of  our  sins  was 
5* 


54  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

transferred  to  him.  When  the  Bible  says  that 
"  our  sins  were  laid  upon  Christ"  and  that  he 
"  was  made  a  curse  for  us,"  no  one  understands 
these  and  other  kindred  expressions  as  imply- 
ing that  the  blame-worthiness  of  our  sins  was 
transferred  to  the  blessed  Redeemer;  the  ob- 
vious meaning  is,  that  in  virtue  of  the  cove- 
nant relation  which  he  sustains  to  his  people, 
he,  as  their  federal  head  and  representative, 
bore  the  punishment  which  was  due  for  their 
sins;  he  was  regarded  and  treated  as  a  sinner 
on  their  account.  So,  when  our  Confession 
says,  that  "the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of 
Christ  are  imputed"  to  the  sinner  as  the 
ground  of  his  justification,  and  the  Bible  de- 
clares that  "  we  are  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  him,"  and  that  "  by  the  obedience  of 
one,  many  shall  be  made  righteous;"  this  lan- 
guage plainly  means,  not  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  is  so  transferred  to  us  as  to  be- 
come personally  or  subjectively  ours,  but  that 
it  becomes  legally  ours — God  reckons  it  to 
our  account  and  regards  and  treats  us  as 
though  it  were  personally  ours,  that  is,  he  re- 
gards and  treats  us  as  righteous.  In  the  same 
way  precisely,  is  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  im- 


IMPUTATION.  55 

puted  to  his  posterity;  they  become  liable  to 
punishment  on  account  of  it — they  are  re- 
garded and  treated  as  sinners  on  the  ground 
of  it.  God  is  pleased  to  lay  it  to  their  charge 
and  deal  with  them  accordingly,  in  the  same 
sense  as  he  was  pleased  to  "bruise"  his  be- 
loved Son  and  "  put  him  to  grief,"  on  account 
of  our  sins. 

Imputation  then  in  each  of  the  cases  here 
cited,  (viz:  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  of  our  sins  to  Christ,  and  of  his 
righteousness  to  us,)  affects  the  legal  respon- 
sibilities, not  the  moral  character  of  the  par- 
ties concerned.  It  creates  in  each  case  a 
ground  of  condemnation  or  justification,  but 
makes  no  one  personally  either  sinful  or  holy. 
It  is  true,  the  believing  sinner  is  not  only  jus- 
tified but  regenerated,  or  made  personally  holy; 
and  mankind  are  not  only  condemned,  but  de- 
praved, that  is,  the  subjects  of  corrupt  and 
sinful  dispositions,  from  the  birth.  But  the 
personal  holiness  of  the  believing  sinner  forms 
no  part  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  is 
imputed  to  him;  neither  is  the  personal  depra- 
vity with  which  all  are  born,  any  part  of  the 
turpitude  or  ill-desert  of  Adam's  sin,  but  they 


56  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

inherit  this  depravity  as  a  consequence  of  the 
imputation  of  his  sin. 

That  the  doctrine  under  consideration  has 
been  correctly  stated  in  the  remarks  just  made, 
might  be  shown  by  ample  quotations  from  the 
writings  of  standard  divines.  Two  or  three 
extracts  will  not  be  deemed  inappropriate. 

"Imputation  (says  Turrettin)  is  either  of 
something  foreign  to  us,  or  of  something  pro- 
perly our  own.  Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to 
us  which  is  personally  ours;  in  which  sense, 
God  imputes  to  sinners  their  transgressions. 
Sometimes  that  is  imputed  to  us  which  is 
without  us,  and  not  performed  by  ourselves; 
thus  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  said  to  be 
imputed  to  us,  and  our  sins  are  imputed  to 
him,  although  he  has  neither  sin  in  himself 
nor  we  righteousness.  Here  we  speak  of  the 
latter  kind  of  imputation,  not  the  former;  be- 
cause we  are  talking  of  a  sin  committed  by 
Adam,  not  by  us.  The  foundation,  therefore, 
of  imputation  is  not  only  the  natural  connec- 
tion which  exists  between  us  and  Adam, 
since,  in  that  case,  all  his  sins  might  be  im- 
puted to  us,  but  mainly  the  moral  and  federal, 
in  virtue  of  which,  God  entered  into  covenant 


IMPUTATION.  57 

with  him  as  our  head."  Again,  he  observes, 
"We  are  constituted  sinners  in  Adam,  in  the 
same  way  in  which  we  are  constituted  right- 
eous in  Christ.  But  in  Christ  we  are  consti- 
tuted righteous  by  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness; therefore,  we  are  made  sinners  in  Adam 
by  the  imputation  of  his  sin." 

To  the  same  effect,  Dr.  Owen  remarks, 
that  "  things  that  are  not  our  own  originally, 
personally,  inherently,  may  yet  be  imputed 
unto  us  <  ex  justitia '  by  the  rule  of  righteous- 
ness. And  this  may  be  done  upon  a  double 
relation  to  those  whose  they  are;  1.  Federal. 
2.  Natural.  Things  done  by  one,  may  be 
imputed  unto  others,  because  of  a  covenant 
relation  between  them.  So  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  and  is  Imputed  unto  all  his  posterity. 
And  the  ground  hereof  is,  that  we  stood  all 
in  the  same  covenant  with  him  who  was  our 
head  and  representative  therein."*  And  again, 
"Nothing  is  intended  by  the  imputation  of  sin 
unto  any,  but  the  rendering  them  justly  ob- 
noxious unto  the  penalty  due  unto  that  sin; 
as  the  'not  imputing'  of  sin,  is  the  freeing 
men  from  being  subject  or  liable  unto  punish- 
ment."* 

*  Treatise  on  Justification. 


58  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

Dr.  Mason  argues  with  his  usual  strength 
and  conclusiveness,  against  the  idea  of  a  trans- 
fer of  moral  character  or  acts  in  imputation. 
"  Instead  of  establishing  our  doctrine,  (he  ob- 
serves, speaking  of  the  atonement,)  such  a 
transfer  would  destroy  it.  For  if  my  per- 
sonal sin  could  be  taken  from  me  and  made 
the  personal  sin  of  another,  he  must  then 
suffer  for  himself  and  not  for  me,  as  I  would 
be  personally  innocent.  He  would  not  be 
under  the  imputation  of  my  sin,  because  I 
would  have  none  to  impute;  and  I  could  not 
enjoy  the  benefit  of  his  righteousness,  because 
on  the  one  hand  I  would  require  none,  and  on 
the  other  he,  as  suffering  for  himself,  would 
have  none  to  offer.  So  that  here  would  be  no 
representation,  neither  the  substance  nor  the 
shadow  of  a  vicarious  atonement.  Therefore, 
while  my  personal  demerit  must  forever  re- 
main my  own,  the  consequences  of  it  are  borne 
by  my  glorious  Surety.  It  is  this  which 
renders  the  imputation  of  sin  to  the  Lord 
Jesus,  a  doctrine  so  acceptable  to  the  con- 
science and  so  consolatory  to  the  heart  of  a 
convinced  sinner."*     This  train  of  reasoning 

*  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  171. 


IMPUTATION.  59 

obviously  applies  in  all  its  force  to  the  parallel 
case  before  us. 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  this  explanation 
of  the  doctrine  of  our  Standards  respecting 
the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  to 
his  posterity,  for  the  reason  already  men- 
tioned: viz.  that  the  doctrine  has  been  exten- 
sively misapprehended.  I  come  now  to  the 
proof  of  it;  that  is,  I  am  to  show  that  Adam 
was  the  federal  head  of  his  posterity,  and  that 
in  virtue  of  this  relation,  they  are  condemned 
on  account  of  his  first  transgression. 

First.     This   doctrine  is  strongly  implied 
in  the  inspired  account  of  the  creation  and 
fall  of  man,  in  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Genesis. 

It  is  surprising  that  any  one  can  read  those 
chapters,  keeping  in  view  the  actual  condition 
of  the  race  since  the  fall,  without  perceiving 
that  Adam  was  acting  for  his  posterity,  as 
well  as  himself.  Notice  this  language:  "And 
God  blessed  them,  and  God  said  unto  them, 
Be  fruitful  and  multiply  and  replenish  the 
earth  and  subdue  it."  "  Behold  I  have  given 
you  every  herb  bearing  seed  which  is  upon 
the  face  of  all  the  earth,  and  every  tree,  in 


60  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

the  which,  is  the  fruit  of  a  tree  yielding  seed; 
to  you  it  shall  be  for  meat."  A  child  must 
see  that  these  declarations  were  intended  as 
much  for  the  descendants  of  the  first  pair  as 
for  themselves. 

Again,  it  has  generally  been  supposed,  that 
the  16th  and  17th  verses  of  the  second  chapter, 
i  contain  the  terms  of  a  covenant  between  God 
and  our  first  parents — which  is  commonly 
called  the  "  covenant  of  works."  "And  the 
Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely 
eat.  But  of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it;  for  in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely 
die."  Adam  no  sooner  violated  this  covenant 
than  its  penalty  was  inflicted  on  him;  he  lost 
the  image  of  God,  or  died  spiritually,  and  he 
became  subject  to  temporal  death.  The  same 
penalty  is  inflicted  on  his  posterity;  which 
shows  that  they  were  embraced  in  the  original 
transaction.  The  curse  which  was  pronounced 
upon  the  ground  also,  that  it  should  "  bring 
forth  thorns  and  thistles,"  continues  until  this 
day.  And  the  sore  punishment  denounced 
against  Eve,  that  "  in  sorrow  she  should  bring 


IMPUTATION.  61 

forth  children/'  is  receiving  its  fulfilment  in 
the  whole  history  of  her  sex. 

It  being  manifest  then,  that  the  sentence 
which  was  pronounced  upon  Adam,  has  been 
visited  upon  his  posterity,  we  are  driven  to 
the  conclusion  that  they  were  included  with 
him  in  the  original  threatening.  But  they 
could  have  been  included  in  this  threatening 
only  on  the  ground  that  Adam  was  acting  as 
their  representative. 

The  only  alternative  to  this  view,  is  this,  to 
wit:  that  God  has  inflicted  upon  the  race  the 
countless  and  awful  evils  they  suffer,  (evils 
let  it  be  observed,  involving,  in  millions  of 
instances,  eternal  perdition,)  in  mere  sove- 
reignty. If  this  doctrine  were  asserted  in 
the  Scriptures,  it  would  become  us  to  bow  to 
it  in  silent  acquiescence;  but  it  is  certainly 
more  congenial  to  the  best  feelings  of  the 
heart,  to  refer  these  evils  to  the  source  to 
which  the  Scriptures  do  really  trace  them,  the 
broken  covenant  of  works. 

In  the  second  place,  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration is  proved  by  the  parallel  drawn 
by  the  sacred  writers  between  Adam  and 
Christ. 

6 


62  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

Rom.  v.  14. — Adam  is  called  "the  figure 
[or  type]  of  him  that  was  to  come."  1  Cor. 
xv.  45. — "The  first  man  Adam  was  made  a 
living  soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quick- 
ening spirit."  And  verse  47. — "The  first 
man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy;  the  second  man 
is  the  Lord  from  heaven." 

These  passages  show  that  there  was  some 
strong  resemblance  between  Adam  and  the 
Saviour.  In  what  did  this  resemblance  con- 
sist? Not  certainly  in  their  possessing  a  com- 
mon nature ;  for  in  this  sense  any  one  of 
Adam's  descendants  was  equally  a  figure  or 
type  of  Christ  as  himself.  Nor  can  the  re- 
semblance consist  merely  in  this,  viz:  that  as 
Adam  was  the  natural  root  of  his  posterity, 
so  Christ  is  the  root  or  source  of  life  to  his 
spiritual  seed;  for  although  this  is  a  truth,  it 
is  not  broad  enough  to  exhaust  the  meaning  of 
the  text  just  quoted.  They  teach  that  Adam 
was  a  type  of  Christ,  in  a  sense  peculiar  to 
himself,  and  on  the  ground  of  which  Christ  is 
called  "the  second  man,"  and  "the  second 
Adam."  But  it  is  as  true  of  any  other  parent 
who  lived  before  the  advent,  as  of  Adam,  that 
he  was  the  natural  root  of  his  posterity.     Nor 


IMPUTATION.  63 

again ;  can  these  passages  mean  simply  this:  that 
Adam  conveyed  a  corrupt  nature  to  his  posteri- 
ty, just  as  Christ  imparts  a  holy  nature  to  his 
spiritual  children.  For  although  this  is  true,  it 
is  like  the  last  interpretation  inadequate  to  the 
language  employed  by  the  Apostle.  For,  (not 
to  dwell  on  the  observation  made  on  the  pre- 
ceding explanation,  and  which  is  equally  appli- 
cable to  this,  that  in  this  sense  Adam  was  no 
more  like  Christ  than  any  other  parent,  since 
all  parents  convey  a  corrupt  nature  to  their 
children,)  let  it  be  noticed  that  in  the  fifth  chap- 
ter of  Romans,  the  evils  in  which  Adam  invol- 
ved his  race,  are  affirmed  to  have  come  upon 
them  on  account  of  his  first  sin,  not  on  ac- 
count of  his  sins  in  general.  Thus  it  is  said, 
"  through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead." 
"By  one  man's  offence  death  reigned  by  one." 
"As  by  the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon 
all  men  to  condemnation."  Had  the  Apostle 
intended  to  say  merely  that  Adam  conveys  a 
corrupt  nature  to  his  posterity,  and  was  herein 
a  type  of  Christ,  it  is  inexplicable  why  he 
should  have  restricted  the  damage  we  suffer 
from  him,  to  his  first  offence;  for,  considered 
only  as  our  natural  head,  our  depravity  is  to 


64  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

be  ascribed,  not  to  any  one  of  bis  sins,  but  to 
the  whole  combined,  or  rather  to  the  general 
defilement  of  his  nature. 

These  various  suppositions,  then,  being  all 
unsatisfactory,  there  remains  but  one  other 
interpretation  of  the  passages  quoted,  and  that 
is,  that  Adam  was  a  type  of  Christ  in  his 
federal  or  representative  character.  On  this 
view  alone,  can  the  Saviour  be  spoken  of  as 
"  the  second  man,"  and  "  the  second  Adam." 
That  Christ  is  the  federal  or  covenant  head  of 
his  people,  is  a  doctrine  distinctly  taught  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  the  proofs  of  which  need 
not  be  adduced  in  this  place.  If,  therefore,  he 
is  the  "  second  Adam,"  the  first  Adam  must 
have  been  the  covenant  head  of  his  children. 
This  view  is  required  also  by  the  statements 
in  the  fifth  of  Romans,  already  cited,  which 
speak  of  the  "  one  offence"  of  Adam  as  the 
source  of  all  our  calamities.  That  offence  in- 
volved the  race  in  condemnation,  just  as  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  insures  the  salvation 
of  all  whom  he  represented.  By  that  offence 
the  covenant  was  broken,  and  he  ceased  from 
that  moment  to  represent  his  posterity.  Had 
he  continued  our  representative  after  that,  we 


IMPUTATION.  65 

should  have  experienced  the  penal  evils  in- 
curred by  his  subsequent  sins  as  we  now  do 
the  penalty  of  the  first  sin.  But  since  he  for- 
feited his  representative  character  by  that  act, 
it  is  only  for  that  act  that  his  constituents  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners. 

In  the  third  place,  we  have  the  direct  tes- 
timony of  Scriptures,  that  the  posterity  of 
Adam  are  condemned  for  his  offence. 

If  the  Bible  declares  this,  the  inference  is 
irresistible  that  Adam  was  their  legal  repre- 
sentative, or  federal  head,  and  that  the  guilt 
of  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them.  But  the  Bible 
does  teach,  in  passages  already  quoted,  that 
our  whole  race  have  been  condemned  for  his 
sin. 

The  object  of  the  Apostle,  in  Rom.  v. 
12-19,  is  to  illustrate  the  mode  in  which  men 
are  delivered  from  sin  and  death,  by  the  mode 
in  which  they  were  brought  into  that  state. 
They  are  justified  through  Christ,  as  they 
were  condemned  in  Adam.  Throughout  the 
argument,  he  assumes  it  as  a  doctrine  acknow- 
ledged by  those  to  whom  the  Epistle  was 
addressed,  that  men  are  condemned  on  the 
ground  of  Adam's  transgression,  and  he  em- 
6* 


QQ  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

ploys  this  familiar  and  admitted  fact,  to 
illustrate  the.  method  of  man's  recovery  by 
Christ.  A  minute  and  critical  examination  of 
the  passage  would  furnish  the  most  convincing 
testimony  to  the  doctrine  maintained  in  this 
essay.  The  time,  however,  will  only  admit 
of  a  reference  to  two  or  three  of  the  verses. 

Verse  12. — "As  by  one  man  sin  entered 
into  the  world  and  death  by  sin,  and  so  death 
passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sin- 
ned." It  is  here  declared  that  death  is  the 
punishment  of  sin,  and  that  all  die  because  all 
have  sinned.  But  multitudes  die  who  have 
never  sinned  in  their  own  persons,  viz.  in- 
fants. The  sin,  therefore,  for  which  they  die, 
must  be  the  sin  of  Adam,  "  the  one  man"  by 
whom  "  sin  entered  into  the  world."  Verse 
16 — "The  judgment  was  by  one  {offence)  to 
condemnation"  Verse  18. — "As  by  the 
offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men 
to  condemnation,  even  so  by  the  righteous- 
ness of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life."  Verse  19. — "For 
as  by  one  marts  disobedience,  many  were 
made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of  one, 
shall  many  be  made  righteous." 


IMPUTATION.  67 

If  it  is  within  the  compass  of  language  to 
express  the  idea  that  all  men  are  condemned 
for  the  offence  of  one  man,  that  idea  is  ex- 
pressed here.  It  is  not  stated  merely  that  his 
sin  has  in  some  ivay  involved  his  posterity  in 
ruin,  or  that  his  sin  has  brought  about  their 
ruin  as  a  natural  result,  just  as  a  drunkard 
usually  entails  vice  and  misery  upon  his 
family;  but  we  are  told  expressly,  that  they 
are  judicially  "condemned"  for  his  offence. 
Furthermore,  wTe  are  told  that  we  are  "  made 
sinners"  by  Adam's  "  disobedience/7  in  the 
same  way  that  we  are  "  made  righteous"  by 
the  "  obedience"  of  Christ.  But  the  obedi- 
ence of  Christ  makes  all  whom  he  represented 
righteous,  by  being  imputed  to  them;  so  the 
disobedience  of  Adam  makes  all  whom  he 
represented,  sinners,  by  being  imputed  to 
them.  The  spiritual  seed  of  Christ  are  re- 
garded and  treated  as  righteous  on  the  ground 
of  his  obedience;  and  the  seed  of  Adam  are 
regarded  and  treated  as  sinners  on  the  ground 
of  his  disobedience.  There  is  no  transfer  of 
moral  character  in  either  case;  but  one  class 
are  justified  and  the  other  condemned,  on  the 


68  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

ground  of  what  has  been  done  by  their  respec- 
tive representatives. 

The  interpretation  here  given  of  this  im- 
portant passage  is  obvious,  and  consistent;  it 
is  supported  by  the  great  body  of  sound 
critics  and  commentators;  and  it  cannot  be 
set  aside  without  gross  violence  to  the  sacred 
text.  (See  Note  I.)  The  doctrine  it  teaches, 
is  repeated  Eph.  ii.  3,  where  it  is  asserted  that 
men  are  "  by  nature  the  children  of  wrath." 
The  least  that  can  be  meant  by  this  language 
is,  that  men  are  under  condemnation  from  the 
womb — they  are  "  by  nature"  under  God's 
wrath.  This  can  be  only  on  the  ground  of 
the  sin  of  some  other  being,  who  of  course  is 
our  first  parent. 

The  fact  set  forth  in  both  these  passages, 
that  Adam's  posterity  are  judicially  con- 
demned on  account  of  his  sin,  shows  that  he 
was  their  federal  head,  and  that  as  such,  the 
guilt  of  his  sin  is  imputed  to  them. 

Fourthly.  This  doctrine  is  proved  by  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  infants. 

The  Scriptures  every  where  speak  of  death, 
not  as  a  mere  providential  "  consequence"  of 


IMPUTATION.  69 

the  fall,  but  as  a  penal  evil—zn  evil  judicially 
inflicted  as  the  retribution  of  sin;  in  a  word, 
as  "  the  wages  of  sin."  That  temporal  death 
is  a  part  of  this  penalty,  (though  not  the 
whole,)  will  be  assumed  as  an  admitted  fact, 
although  some  have  gone  so  far  in  rectifying 
Scripture  as  to  deny  it.  (See  Note  K. )  Why 
then  do  infants  suffer  and  die?  Not  surely, 
"because  they  are  actual  transgressors."  Nor 
is  it  enough  to  say,  that  they  suffer  and  die 
"merely  in  consequence  of  a  providential 
arrangement."  This  only  throws  the  diffi- 
culty a  step  back; — why  was  such  an  ar- 
rangement made,  and  where  is  the  equity  of 
it,  unless  Adam  represented  his  posterity? 
Is  it  credible  that  a  just  and  merciful  God 
would  inflict  the  most  tremendous  evils  upon 
successive  generations  of  men,  prior  to  any 
actual  sin  of  their  own,  if  they  had  no  other 
connexion  with  the  pair  from  whom  they 
sprung,  than  that  which  commonly  subsists 
between  parents  and  children  ?  Could  he  not 
have  caused  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  to 
terminate  upon  themselves,  and  either  made 
their  children  holy,  or  created  another  pair  to 
be  the  root  of  the  race?  And  are  we  not  com- 


70  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

pelled  by  what  we  know  of  the  Divine  char- 
acter, to  believe  that  he  would  have  done  one 
of  these  things,  or  else  cut  off  the  succession 
of  the  race  altogether,  had  not  Adam  sustained 
a  federal  relation  to  his  posterity  ? 

The  position  here  taken,  that  temporal 
death  is  a  part  of  the  curse  of  the  law,  is  not 
at  all  invalidated  by  the  fact,  that  Christians 
(who  are  delivered  from  the  curse  of  the  law,) 
die.  For  in  their  case,  that  which  was  a  penal 
evil,  is  converted  into  a  providential  chastise- 
ment; it  being  too  evident  to  require  argu- 
ment, that  the  same  infliction  may  be  either 
judicial  or  disciplinary,  according  to  the  de- 
sign of  its  Author.  So  in  regard  to  infants; 
if  it  be  alleged  that  death  is  a  providential 
chastisement  to  them;  I  reply,  it  can  only  be 
so  on  the  ground  that  they  have,  (like  adult 
believers,)  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the 
law  through  the  blood  of  Christ.  So  that 
even  on  this  view,  (the  correctness  of  which 
I  am  not  disposed  to  question,)  their  death 
furnishes  incontestible  evidence  that  they  are 
by  nature  in  a  state  of  condemnation. 

If  it  be  thought  that  the  depraved  nature 


IMPUTATION.  71 

which  infants  possess,  is  sufficient  to  account 
for  their  liability  to  suffering;  I  answer,  First, 
That  the  apostle  declares  that  "judgment  has 
come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,"  for  the 
offence  of  one  man.  And,  Secondly,  That 
the  depravity  of  nature  spoken  of,  is  one  of 
the  very  things  to  be  accounted  for.  This 
depravity  is  the  source  of  all  our  sin  and 
misery;  and  the  question  is,  how  happens  it 
that  we  are  thus  defiled  from  our  very  birth  ? 
Why  are  we  born  under  this  total  deprivation 
of  right  principles  and  affections?  Why  do  we 
begin  to  live  under  the  visible  frown  of  God; 
with  a  corrupt  nature,  which  unless  renewed 
by  sovereign  grace,  will  infallibly  destroy  us 
eternally?  To  say  that  infants  die  because 
they  are  depraved,  although  true,  does  not 
meet  this  difficulty  at  all.  Nor  does  any 
human  theory  meet  it.  The  fact  admits  of  no 
other  explanation  than  the  one  furnished  by 
the  testimony  already  cited,  that  the  first  man 
represented  his  race,  so  that  when  he  fell,  they 
fell,  and  were  involved  in  the  same  condem- 
nation with  himself. 

Once  more,   omitting   other   arguments,   I 
remark  briefly  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine 


72  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

of  this  essay,  that  unless  the  race  were  tried 
in  Adam^  they  have  been  condemned  with- 
out a  trial. 

This  argument  will  be  convincing  to  those 
who  admit  that  we  inherit  a  corrupt  and  sinful 
nature.  Such  a  nature  being  at  variance  with 
the  divine  law,  implies  a  state  of  condemna- 
tion prior  to  actual  transgression.  We  are 
condemned,  therefore,  unless  our  doctrine  be 
correct,  without  a  probation  either  in  our  own 
persons,  or  that  of  our  representative.  This 
sentiment  is  so  incompatible  with  the  scrip- 
ture representation  of  the  Divine  character, 
that  it  should  not  be  lightly  adopted.  It  is 
certainly  more  honourable  to  the  Deity  to 
infer,  from  the  fact  of  our  condemnation,  that 
Adam  was  appointed  our  representative,  and 
put  on  probation  as  such  in  our  stead. 

There  is  a  theory  prevalent  in  our  day, 
which  attempts  to  evade  the  force  of  this  rea- 
soning, by  first  denying  the  doctrine  of  native 
depravity,  and  then  affirming  that  every  indi- 
vidual is  put  on  trial  for  himself.  How  fair  a 
trial  this  is,  may  be  inferred  from  the  language 
of  these  errorists  themselves,  who  maintain 
that  every  child   is   placed  in    such  circum- 


IMPUTATION.  73 

stances  that  he  will  infallibly  sin,  and  incur 
the  wrath  of  God,  as  soon  as  he  becomes  a 
moral  agent.  So  absolute  is  this  certainty, 
that  of  the  countless  millions  of  Adam's  de- 
scendants, (our  blessed  Saviour  alone  excepted,) 
not  one  has  avoided  this  dreadful  catastrophe. 
Yet  we  are  gravely  told  that  "  God  gives  to 
each  individual  a  fair  trial  for  himself !"  Surely 
this  is  insufferable  trifling  with  a  most  solemn 
subject. 

Such  are  some  of  the  considerations  which 
go  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the  federal  relation 
of  Adam  to  his  posterity,  and  the  universal 
condemnation  of  the  race  on  account  of  his  sin. 
Various  objections  have  been  urged  against 
this  doctrine,  a  few  of  which  shall  be  very 
briefly  noticed. 

First.  "  This  doctrine,  (it  has  been  alleged,) 
contradicts  the  essential  principles  of  moral 
consciousness" 

I  answer,  it  does  this  only  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  doctrine  involves  a  personal 
oneness  between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  or 
a  transfer  of  his  moral  character  to  them; 
7 


74  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

neither  of  which  ideas  (as  we  have  seen)  be- 
longs to  the  doctrine. 

Secondly.  It  is  contended  that  "  Adam 
could  not  have  represented  his  posterity, 
because  they  never  appointed  him  to  that 
office." 

I  answer,  (1.)  that  even  among  men,  re- 
presentation does  not  necessarily  depend  on 
the  consent  of  the  parties  represented.  Guar- 
dians are  every  day  appointed  for  minors 
without  their  consent,  and  their  acts  are  le- 
gally binding  on  their  wards.  So,  also,  na- 
tions are  bound  by  the  acts  of  their  represen- 
tatives, though  not  one  half  the  people  have 
the  right  of  suffrage.  But  even  if  the  princi- 
ple were  not  recognised  in  human  transac- 
tions, it  could  not,  without  the  grossest  pre- 
sumption, be  denied,  that  the  Creator  has  the 
right  to  bind  his  creatures  to  any  arrangement 
he  may  see  fit  to  make,  without  consulting 
them. 

(2.)  God  has  actually  exercised  this  right 
in  repeated  instances;  that  is,  he  has  estab- 
lished covenants  with  individuals  which  were 
binding  upon  their  posterity. 


IMPUTATION.  75 

Witness  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  de- 
scribed Gen.  xvii.  1-14.  Witness  also  the 
language  of  Moses,  Deut.  v.  2,  3,  respecting 
the  covenant  with  Israel: — "The  Lord  our 
God  made  a  covenant  with  us  in  Horeb.  The 
Lord  madve  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers, 
but  with  us,  even  us,  who  are  all  of  us  here 
alive  this  day."  A  large  proportion  of  those 
to  whom  these  words  were  addressed,  were 
not  born  at  the  time  the  covenant  was  made 
at  Horeb;  yet  it  seems  they  were  included  in 
it.  Again,  Moses  thus  addressed  Israel  on 
another  occasion.  "Neither  with  you  only 
do  I  make  this  covenant,  and  this  oath;  but 
with  him  that  standeth  here  with  us  this  day 
before  the  Lord  our  God,  and  also  with  him 
that  is  not  here  with  us  this  day." — Deut. 
xxix.  14,  15.  The  context  shows  that  the 
last  clause  refers  to  future  generations  of  their 
children.  So  irreconcilable  with  Scripture 
facts  is  the  doctrine  that  even  God  cannot 
appoint  one  individual  as  the  representative  of 
others,  without  their  consent. 

(3.)  The  objection  contains  an  imputation 
upon  the  divine  character,  and  therefore  de- 
stroys itself:  for  it  implies  that  God  might 


76  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

have  proposed  terms  to  Adam,  which  his 
posterity,  had  they  been  present,  would  have 
felt  themselves  authorized  to  reject  as  inequi- 
table. 

Thirdly.  This  doctrine  is  declared  to  be 
"  irreconcilable  with  the  justice  of  God." 

I  answer,  (1.)  the  objection  overlooks  the 
fact  that  God  has  suffered  the  whole  race  to 
be  involved  in  ruin,  through  the  apostacy  of 
Adam.  If  this  be  a  fact,  it  must  be  compat- 
ible with  the  divine  justice.  The  only  ques- 
tion then,  is,  whether  the  justice  of  God  may 
be  best  vindicated  by  referring  this  fact  to  his 
absolute  sovereignty,  or  by  seeking  a  solution 
of  it  in  such  a  covenant  with  Adam  as  has 
been  described.  The  last  view  we  have  found 
to  be  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  and  when 
fairly  understood,  it  must  commend  itself  to 
the  humble  and  patient  inquirer  after  truth,  as 
the  most  rational. 

(2.)  If  we  relinquish  this  view,  we  must 
adopt  one  which  militates  much  more  against 
the  divine  justice,  viz.  that  our  race  have  been 
condemned  without  a  trial. 

(3.)  Although  we  are  not  able  to  enter 
fully  into  all  the  reasons  of  the  Deity  in  ap- 


IMPUTATION.  77 

pointing  Adam  as  our  covenant  head,  nor  to 
discern  all  the  bearings  of  this  transaction, 
there  are  some  considerations  which  exhibit 
the  equity  of  the  arrangement  in  a  clear  light. 

One  consideration  is,  that  a  probation  in 
Adam  was  more  likely  to  lead  to  a  happy 
issue  for  his  posterity,  than  if  they  had  been 
put  on  trial  each  for  himself.  For  Adam  was 
created  perfectly  holy,  and  in  the  full  matu- 
rity of  his  powers;  whereas  they  were  to 
commence  their  existence  in  helpless  infancy, 
and  of  course  far  less  capable  of  resisting 
temptation  (on  the  dawn  of  their  moral 
agency,)  than  he  was.  Besides,  his  situation 
was  in  all  respects  pre-eminently  favourable 
to  a  desirable  result — much  more  so  than 
could  have  been  the  situation  of  any  of  his 
descendants.  And  in  addition  to  this,  he  had 
stronger  motives  to  watchfulness  than  any 
other  individual  of  the  race  could  have  had; 
since  the  welfare  of  all  his  posterity  was  sus- 
pended on  his  steadfastness. 

Another  consideration  is,  that  if  Adam  had 

maintained  his  integrity,  his  posterity  would 

have  inherited  eternal   life  as  the  reward  of 

his  obedience.     That  the  covenant  included  a 

7* 


78  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

promise  of  life,  is  implied  in  the  threatening, 
and  strongly  intimated  in  several  passages  in 
the  New  Testament.  We  may  ask  then, 
with  a  distinguished  New  England  divine, 
(Dr.  Bellamy,)  whether,  "  if  Adam  had  kept 
the  covenant  of  his  God,  and  secured  happi- 
ness to  all  his  race,  we  should  not  for  ever 
have  blessed  God  for  so  good  a  constitution? 
Never  once  should  we  have  questioned  God's 
right  and  authority  to  make  him  our  public 
head  and  representative,  or  have  thought  that 
it  did  not  become  his  wisdom  and  goodness 
to  trust  our  all  in  his  hands.  And  if  we 
should  thus  have  approved  this  constitution 
had  Adam  never  sinned,  why  might  we  not 
as  justly  approve  it  now,  if  we  would  be  but 
disinterestedly  impartial!  It  is  the  same  in 
itself  now  that  it  would  have  been  then;  as 
holy,  and  just,  and  good."* 

These  observations,  it  is  believed,  consti- 
tute a  sufficient  reply  to  the  objection  that  the 
doctrine  to  which  our  attention  has  been  di- 
rected, implicates  the  divine  justice. 

Fourthly.  It  is  urged  that  this  doctrine  "  is 
at  variance   with   the  divine   declaration, 

Bellamy's  Works,  Vol.  I.  p.  221. 


IMPUTATION.  79 

that  •'  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of 
the  father.'  "— Ezek.  xviii.  20. 

I  answer,  that  the  declaration  here  quoted 
was  addressed  to  the  Jews,  who  complained 
that  they  were  driven  into  exile  on  account 
of  the  sins  of  their  fathers.  The  prophet  tells 
them  in  reply,  that  they  shall  no  longer  have 
occasion  to  make  this  complaint,  since  God 
will  deal  with  them  according  to  their  own 
sins.  It  must  be  manifest,  that  the  declara- 
tion here  made  respecting  a  particular  dispen- 
sation of  Divine  Providence,  has  no  direct 
bearing  on  the  question,  whether  the  race  at 
large  are  condemned  for  Adam's  sin.  The 
objection  founded  on  this  passage  will  be  set 
aside,  however,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  God 
has  in  some  instances  actually  punished  indi- 
viduals for  the  sins  of  others.  And  this  is 
evident  from  the  very  case  which  has  given 
rise  to  the  objection.  In  the  second  verse  of 
this  chapter,  God  asks,  "  What  mean  you  that 
you  use  this  proverb  concerning  the  land  of 
Israel,  saying,  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
grapes  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on 
edge?"  that  is,  "  why  are  we  punished  for 
our  fathers'  sins?"     To  this  God  replies,  "  As 


80  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

I  live,  ye  shall  not  have  occasion  any  more  to 
use  this  proverb  in  Israel.     Behold — the  soul 
that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."     The  phrase  "  any 
more"  shows  conclusively,  that  he  had  given 
them  occasion  to  use  the  proverb  previously; 
that  is,  he  had  not  only  visited  upon  them  their 
own  sins,  but  those  of  their  rebellious  ances- 
tors— a  fact  also  recognised  in  the  sad  confes- 
sion of  the  Church,  Lam.  v.  7. — "  Our  fathers 
have  sinned,  and  are  not;  and  we  have  borne 
their  iniquities."     God  only  determined  now 
that  he  would  not  do  this  "  any  more."    The 
declaration,  therefore,  on  which  the  objection 
rests,  is  so  far  from  asserting  a  universal  prin- 
ciple in  the  divine  dispensations,  that  it  does 
not  even  apply  to  his  dealings  with  this  very 
people  at  the  period  immediately  preceding 
the  occasion  on  which  it  was  uttered.     Again, 
there  are    numerous   instances   mentioned  in 
Scripture,  in  which  families  and  infants  are 
expressly  declared  to  be  devoted  to  death  for 
the  sins  of  parents  or  others.     See  an  instance 
in  the  prophecy  just  quoted,  Ezek.  ix.  6,  and 
another,  Deut.  xxxii.  25.    So  also  for  the  sin  of 
Achan,  not  only  himself  but  "his  sons  and 
daughters  were  stoned  and  burnt  with  fire," 


IMPUTATION.  81 

Josh.  vii.  24,  25,  although  we  do  not  read  that 
they  were  confederates  with  him  in  his  crime. 
In  the  same  way  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  Da- 
than,  and  Abiram,  was  visited  upon  "  their 
wives  and  their  sons  and  their  little  children," 
who  were  destroyed  with  them. — Numb.  xvi. 
27,  32.  The  infants  of  the  antediluvians,  of 
the  Sodomites,  and  the  Canaanites,  shared  the 
doom  of  their  parents.  When  Israel  was  pas- 
sing through  the  desert,  they  were  attacked 
by  the  Amalekites  without  provocation.  God 
imputed  this  crime  to  their  descendants,  and 
several  centuries  afterwards  said  to  Saul,  1 
Sam.  xv.  2,  3. — "  I  remember  that  which 
Amalek  did  to  Israel,  how  he  laid  wait  for 
him  in  the  way  when  he  came  up  from  Egypt. 
Now  go  and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  de- 
stroy all  that  they  have,  and  spare  them  not; 
but  slay  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and 
suckling,  ox  and  sheep,  camel  and  ass."  To 
the  same  purpose,  our  Saviour  says  to  the 
Jews,  Matt,  xxiii.  35. — "  That  upo?i  you  may 
come  all  the  righteous  blood  shed  upon  the 
earth,  from  the  blood  of  righteous  Abel  unto 
the  blood  of  Zacharias  son  of  Barachias,  whom 
ye  slew  between  the  temple  and  the  altar." 


82  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

In  fine,  the  Scriptures  abound  with  illustra- 
tions of  the  principle  asserted  in  the  second 
commandment,  in  which  God  proclaims  him- 
self "  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children,  unto  the  third 
and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate"  him. 
How  futile  is  it,  in  the  face  of  all  this  tes- 
timony, to  bring  forward  the  declaration  that 
"  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the 
father,"  as  evidence  that  God  never  punishes 
one  individual  for  the  sin  of  another,  and  as  an 
argument  to  show  that  the  doctrine  of  Adam's 
federal  character,  is  without  foundation. 

The  less  formidable  objections  which  are 
sometimes  urged  against  the  doctrine  of  Im- 
putation, might  be  disposed  of  with  the  same 
facility  as  those  that  have  now  been  men- 
tioned. But  it  is  needless  to  go  into  a  spe- 
cific enumeration  of  them.  Enough,  it  is 
believed,  has  been  said,  to  show  that  the  doc- 
trine is  taught  in  the  Scriptures. 

Few  doctrines  have  been  more  ridiculed  in 
our  day  than  this.  And  so  skilfully  have  the 
shafts  of  ridicule  been  levelled,  so  grossly  has 
the  doctrine  been  misrepresented,  and  so  vi- 


IMPUTATION.  83 

vidly  have  the  alleged  injustice  and  absurdity 
of  it  been  depicted,  both  from  the  pulpit  and 
the  press,  that  even  Presbyterians  themselves, 
have  in  many  instances  been  half  ashamed  to 
avow  their  belief  of  it.  If  we  are  to  judge 
from  the  popular  representations  on  the  sub- 
ject, the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  of  works  in 
which  Adam  represented  his  posterity,  so  that 
in  his  fall  they  fell,  and  were  subjected  to  the 
penalty  he  had  incurred,  belongs  to  the  mys- 
ticisms of  the  dark  ages,  and  is  quite  intoler- 
able in  this  golden  era  of  improvements  in 
theology.  And  there  are  probably  intelligent 
people  to  be  found,  who  have  really  been 
made  to  believe  that  it  is  a  doctrine  fit  only 
for  the  nursery.  It  may  turn  out,  however, 
that  there  are  not  only  some  men  of  sense 
who  hold  the  doctrine  now,  but  that  it  has 
been  advocated  by  names  which  will  shine 
with  undecaying  lustre,  when  those  who 
would  brand  their  opinions  with  folly,  shall 
have  passed  away  into  oblivion.  In  confir- 
mation of  this  remark,  look  at  the  venerable 
body  by  which  our  Standards  were  framed, 
the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.  Of 
this  body,  Mr.  Baxter,  who  knew  most  of  the 


84  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

members,  says:  "they  were  men  of  eminent 
learning,  godliness,  ministerial  abilities,  and 
fidelity;  and  being  not  worthy  to  be  one  of 
them  myself,  I  may  more  fully  speak  the 
truth  which  I  know,  even  in  the  face  of  malice 
and  envy;  that  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  judge  by 
the  information  of  history  and  by  any  other 
evidences,  the  Christian  world  since  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  had  never  a  Synod  of  more 
excellent  Divines  than  this  Synod.  '**  This 
testimony  will  be  readily  credited  when  it  is 
remembered,  that  among  this  body,  were  such 
men  as  Twisse  and  Arrowsmith,  Calamy  and 
Burgess,  Tuckney,  and  Goodwin,  t  and  others 
of  scarcely  less  celebrity.  It  would  be  wea- 
risome to  refer  by  name  to  the  catalogue  of 
illustrious  men  who  have,  since  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  written  in  defence  of  the  doc- 
trine of  Imputation.  Let  it  suffice  to  quote 
the  testimony  of  two  men,  neither  of  whom 
will  be  readily  suspected  of  embracing  a  doc- 
trine so  palpably  preposterous  and  unjust  as 
this  is  sometimes  affirmed  to  be.  One  of 
these  is  an  eminent  jurist,  well  skilled  in  the 

*See  Belfrage's  History  of  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
t  See  Neale's  History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  III. 


IMPUTATION.  85 

nature  of  laws  and  penalties,  and  the  grounds 
of  them;  I  mean  the  celebrated  Lord  Chief 
Justice  Hale.     * 

(i  God  made  man  righteous  at  first,  (he  ob- 
serves,) and  gave  him  a  righteous  law;  and 
inasmuch  as  man  owed  an  infinite  subjection 
to  the  Author  of  his  being,  he  owed  an  exact 
obedience   to   this   law   of  his   Maker.     Yet 
God  was  pleased  to  give  him  this  law,  not 
only  as  the  rule  of  his  obedience,  but  as  a 
covenant  of  life  and  death,  wherein  the  first 
man  made  a  stipulation  for  himself  and  his 
posterity.     And  this  was  just;  for  he  had  in 
himself  the  race  of  all  mankind.     All  succeed- 
ing generations  are  but  pieces  of  Adam,  who 
had,  nor  could  have  their  being  but  from  him, 
and  so  it  was  but  reasonable  and  just  for  him 
to  contract  for  all  his  posterity.     And  as  it 
was  just  in  respect  of  the  person  contracting, 
so  it  was  in  respect  of  the  manner  of  the  con- 
tract.    The  law  which  was  his  covenant,  was 
a  just  and  righteous  law;  a  law  suitable  to  the 
endowments  and  power  of  his  nature.    Again, 
the  blessedness   which  by  his  obedience  he 
was  to  hold,  was  not  of  his  own   creating  or 
obtaining;  it  was  the  free  gift  of  God;  and  it 
8 


86  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

is  but  reasonable  that  the  Lord  of  this  gift 
might  give  it  in  what  manner  he  pleased;  and 
it  could  not  be  unjust,  that  the  Lord  who  gave 
him  this  blessedness,  should  give  it  him  under 
what  conditions  he  pleased.  But  he  gave  it 
him  under  most  reasonable  and  just  conditions, 
viz.  an  obedience  to  a  most  just  and  reason- 
able law,  which  suited  with  the  ability  and 
perfection  of  his  nature;  and  therefore,  when 
upon  the  breach  of  the  covenant  by  man,  he 
withdrew  that  blessedness  from  him  and  his 
posterity,  he  did  no  more  than  what  was  most 
just  for  him  to  do.  And  thus  we  stand  guil- 
ty of  that  sin  which  our  first  father  commit- 
ted, and  are  deprived  of  that  blessedness  and 
life  which  our  first  father  had;  and  the  priva- 
tion of  that  blessedness  and  immortality  is 
death."  Thus  admirably  does  this  great  man 
clear  the  justice  of  God  in  constituting  Adam 
the  covenant-head  of  his  posterity. 

The  other  witness  I  propose  to  cite,  is  the 
late  Rev.  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson,  of  Philadelphia. 

"The  first  intelligent  creatures,  (says  Dr. 
Wilson,)  were  purely  spiritual,  and  each  stood 
or  fell  for  himself.  He  united  in  man  the 
spiritual  and  corporeal  natures;  he  formed  his 


IMPUTATION.  87 

soul  innocent  and  holy,  and  made  ample  pro- 
vision for  the  comfort  of  his  body;  and  as  it 
would  have  been  inconvenient  to  have  brought 
all  of  the  human  family,  which  were  to  be  in 
every  generation,  upon  the  earth  at  one  time, 
and  still  more  so,  that  every  one  standing  or 
falling  for  himself  the  earth  should  be  the 
common  habitation  of  beings  perfectly  holy, 
happy,   and    immortal,    and   also    of    cursed, 
perishing    beings,   he   constituted   the  first 
man  a  representative  of  his  race.     c  Let  us 
make  ?nan' — the  race  in  one.     To  be  fruit- 
ful, multiply,  fill,  and  subdue  the  earth,  were 
directed  to  the  race.     In  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof,  thou  shalt  die.     He  did  die  spiritu- 
ally; he  lost  his  innocence,  became  the  sub- 
ject  of  guilt,  shame,  and   fear;   and   all   his 
posterity   inherit   the   fallen    nature.      Being 
already   cursed,   when    afterwards    arraigned 
and  sentenced,  it  was  only  necessary  to  curse 
his  enjoyments  in  this  world.     His  posterity 
were  included,  for  they  are  subjected  to  the 
same  afflictions  and  death.     If  they  had  not 
been  included  in  the  sentence,  '  dust  thou  art, 
and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return,'  as  they  were 
a   part  of  his  dust   not  dying,   it  would  not 


88  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

have  been  accomplished.  That  he  represent- 
ed the  race,  appears  also  from  this,  that  the 
command  was  given  to  him  before  his  wife 
was  formed;  and  also  because  it  does  not 
appear  that  her  eyes  were  opened  to  see  her 
guilt  and  miserable  condition,  until  he  had 
eaten  of  the  fruit;  then  the  eyes  of  them  both 
were  opened."* 

I  shall  now  close  this  dissertation  with  a 
few  practical  observations. 

First.  The  doctrine  which  has  been  discuss- 
ed is  a  doctrine  of  great  importance. 

As  this  is  a  point  about  which  there  exists 
some  diversity  of  opinion,  I  shall  spend  a 
little  time  upon  it. 

If  all  truth  is  valuable,  (as  will  be  generally 
conceded,)  it  cannot  be  a  matter  of  indiffer- 
ence whether  we  have  correct  views  on  any 
subject  which  God  has  deemed  it  proper  to 
embrace  in  a  revelation  of  his  will.  It  is  not, 
however,  on  this  ground  simply,  that  the  doc- 
trine under  consideration  deserves  to  be  re- 
garded as  important.     It  is  important  as  ex- 

*  Sec  Dr.  Wilson's  Edition  of  Ridgley's  Divinity,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  77.     Note  by  the  Editor. 


IMPUTATION.  89 

hibiting  the  relation  which  the  first  man  sus- 
tained to  his  posterity,  and  as  vindicating  the 
divine  perfections  in  reference  to  the  evils 
which  have  come  upon  the  race  in  conse- 
quence of  his  apostacy.  The  alternative  pre- 
sented for  our  adoption  is  this:  Has  God 
established  such  a  constitution  of  things,  that 
because  one  man  sinned,  all  his  posterity, 
though  related  to  him  only  as  their  natural 
root,  should  commence  life  in  circumstances 
which  render  it  absolutely  certain  that  they 
will  incur  his  curse  with  their  very  first  moral 
act;  or  are  we  born  under  his  displeasure  in 
virtue  of  a  benevolent  covenant  made  with 
our  first  parent  and  broken  by  him,  in  which, 
by  the  just  appointment  of  God,  we  were 
included?  The  latter  of  these  views  would 
seem  to  commend  itself  to  every  impartial 
mind,  as  presenting  the  divine  character  in  a 
far  more  attractive  light  than  the  other,  and 
as  avoiding  many  of  the  difficulties  with  which 
it  is  embarrassed.  Indeed,  on  any  other  view 
than  that  which  has  been  defended  in  this 
treatise,  the  dealings  of  God  with  our  race,  in 
subjecting  them  to  such  terrible  inflictions  by 
8* 


90  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

reason  of  their  descent  from  a  fallen  head,  are 
shrouded  in  impenetrable  darkness. 

Again,  this  doctrine  is  important  as  being 
identified  ivith  the  true  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation through  the  righteousness  of  Christ- 
We  are  taught  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans* 
that  we  are  saved  through  Christ,  in  the  same 
manner  that  we  were  lost  in  Adam.  The 
doctrine  that  we  are  condemned  for  Adam's 
sin,  was  so  familiar  to  the  Jews,  that  the 
Apostle  does  not  stop  to  prove  it,  but  assum- 
ing its  truth,  employs  it  to  illustrate  the 
method  of  our  recovery.  "  As  by  the  offence 
of  one  all  were  condemned,  so  by  the  right- 
eousness of  one  all  are  justified."  "As  by 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sin- 
ners, so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 
be  made  righteous."  One  principle  pervades 
both  the  Adamic  and  the  Mediatorial  dispen- 
sations. Adam  was  the  covenant-head  of  his 
people,  that  is,  of  his  race;  and  Christ  is  the 
covenant-head  of  his  people,  that  is,  of  his  spi- 
ritual seed.  The  disobedience  of  the  first 
Adam  was  imputed  to  his  seed,  and  they  were 
condemned  for  it:  the  obedience  of  the  second 
Adam,  is  imputed  to  his  seed,  and   they  are 


IMPUTATION.  •-  9  1 

justified  by  it.  One  covenant  cannot  be  de- 
nied, and  the  other  consistently  retained.  If 
the  representative  character  of  Adam  is  not 
admitted,  that  of  Christ  will  not  ordinarily  be 
recognized,  except  in  a  very  inadequate  form. 

And  this  leads  to  another  observation,  viz. 
that  this  doctrine  is  important,  as  an  essential 
part  of  that  system  of  theology  which  is 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  and  summarily  com- 
prised in  our  Standards. 

It  has  become  fashionable  to  speak  in  dis- 
paraging terms  of  systems  of  theology,  and  of 
creeds  and  confessions  of  faith.  (See  Note  L.) 
That  the  Bible  does  not  teach  theology  in  a 
systematic  form,  is  true;  but  to  suppose  that 
it  does  not  contain  a  system  of  theology,  com- 
plete and  harmonious  in  all  its  parts,  is  to 
charge  its  Divine  Author  with  framing  his 
word  without  a  plan.  Besides,  errorists,  who 
have  in  every  age  declaimed  so  much  against 
systems,  have  always  had  systems  of  their 
own,  (See  note  M.)  which  they  have  defended 
with  great  zeal,  and  not  seldom,  with  much 
ingenuity. 

Another  fact  closely  allied  with  the  one  just 
named,  is,   that  one  error    almost   invariably 


92  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

brings  others  along  with  it;  and  so  also,  when 
an  important  doctrine  or  principle  is  abandon- 
ed, its  affiliated  doctrines  usually  fall  with  it. 

This  may  be  illustrated  by  the  doctrine 
before  us.  It  is  denied  in  our  day  that  the 
guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  his  poste- 
rity. One  ground  of  this  denial  is,  that  penal 
evil  cannot,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  in- 
flicted on  one  person,  for  another's  sin.  The 
principle  here  laid  down,  applies  as  directly 
to  the  atonement,  as  to  our  connexion  with 
Adam.  And,  accordingly,  they  who  deny 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  us,  also  deny 
the  imputation  of  our  sins  to  the  Redeemer — 
that  is,  they  deny  that  he  bore  the  penal- 
ty of  the  law  in  our  stead.  And,  what  is 
more,  they  deny  that  his  righteousness  is  im- 
puted to  us,  as  the  ground  of  our  justifica- 
tion. These  two  doctrines,  it  is  true,  are  not 
always  rejected  with  the  first;  but  consistency 
requires  that  they  should  be,  and  there  are 
unhappily  many  in  our  day,  too  consistent  to 
retain  them. 

Again,  see  where  the  principle  leads,  that 
morality  can  attach  only  to  acts  of  choice. 
According  to  this  principle,  fairly  carried  out, 


IMPUTATION.  93 

Adam  was  not  created  a  holy  being,  but  made 
himself  holy  by  the  first  exercise  of  his  moral 
powers;  neither  was  the  human  nature  of  the 
infant  Saviour  holy,  until  he  became  a  moral 
agent.  It  follows,  also,  that  infants  have  no 
more  moral  character  than  brutes;  and  that 
regeneration  consists,  not  in  a  radical  transfor- 
mation of  character  by  the  immediate  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  in  the  act  of  the  sin- 
ner's own  mind — an  act  put  forth,  it  may  be, 
from  no  higher  motive  than  "  self love."  All 
these  opinions  are  the  legitimate  fruits  of  the 
principle,  that  there  can  be  no  moral  character 
apart  from  moral  action.  And  they  are  all 
held  and  propagated  in  our  own  country,  at 
this  time.  It  should  be  added,  however,  that 
they  are  not  all  chargeable  on  every  one  who 
maintains  the  principle  just  stated.  For  many 
who  adopt  that  principle,  believe  in  native 
depravity;  although  their  philosophy  compels 
them  to  take  the  ground  that  the  depravity  of 
infants  consists  in  actual  transgressions.  And 
whatever  may  be  their  view  of  regeneration, 
they  by  no  means  admit  that  the  sinner 
changes  his  own  heart,  under  the  influence 
of  self-love. 


94  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

But  without  enlarging  on  the  consequences 
of  adopting  a  single  false  principle  in  theolo- 
gy, I  repeat  the  observation,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  federal  character  of  Adam,  is  essential 
to  the  system  of  truth  comprised  in  our  stand- 
ards, and  has  ever  been  so  regarded  by  the 
soundest  divines.  No  one  should  be  willing 
to  see  this  doctrine  trodden  under  foot,  who 
does  not  wish  to  see  the  whole  superstructure 
prostrated.  That  this  remark  is  not  lightly 
made,  will  be  evident  from  the  opinions  of 
two  distinguished  theologians,  whose  names 
are  held  in  profound  veneration  by  the  Church. 
One  of  these,  is  President  Edwards,  who  says, 
that  "  the  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  original 
sin,  renders  redemption  unnecessary"  The 
other  is  Dr.  Owen,  who  holds  this  language 
on  the  subject: — "By  some  the  imputation  of 
the  actual  apostacy  and  transgression  of  Adam, 
the  head  of  our  natural  posterity,  whereby 
one  sin  became  the  sin  of  the  world,  is  utterly 
denied.  Hereby  both  the  ground  the  apostle 
proceedeth  on  in  evincing  the  necessity  of  our 
justification,  or  our  being  made  righteous  by 
the  obedience  of  another,  and  all  the  argu- 
ments brought  in  confirmation  of  the  doctrine 


IMPUTATION.  95 

of  it,  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  are  evaded  and  overthrown.  Soci- 
nas  confesseth  that  place  to  give  great  coun- 
tenance unto  the  doctrine  of  justification  by 
the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ;  and 
therefore  he  sets  himself  to  oppose,  with  sun- 
dry artifices,  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of 
Adam  unto  his  natural  posterity.  For  he 
perceived  well  enough,  that  upon  the  admis- 
sion thereof,  the  imputation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  unto  his  spiritual  seed,  would 
unavoidably  follow,  according  unto  the  tenor 
of  the  Apostle's  discourse." 

To  these  quotations  may  be  added  the  testi- 
mony of  the  ablest  opposers  of  our  doctrine 
in  the  present  day,  who  have  justly  said,  that 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin  cannot  be  consist- 
ently held,  if  that  of  imputation  is  aban- 
doned.* 

If  any  weight  is  to  be  allowed  to  these  au- 
thorities, it  is  not  surprising  that  the  friends 
of  the  truth  should  betray  so  much  solicitude, 
when  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  (as  embrac- 
ing our  covenant-relation  to  Adam,)  is  assail- 
ed.    They  see  very  well  that  the  denial  of 

*  Christian  Spectator. 


96  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

this  doctrine  is  likely  to  lead  to  a  subversion 
of  the  system  to  which  it  belongs.  Eccle- 
siastical history  also  lifts  her  warning  voice, 
and  teaches  them,  that  error  has  achieved  its 
most  fatal  triumphs,  by  first  proposing  to 
modify  the  terms  usually  employed  by  the 
Church  in  stating  her  doctrines,  or  by  calling 
in  question  points  which  seemed  to  be  of  little 
practical  value.  These  changes  accomplished, 
and  the  Church  either  lulled  to  sleep,  or  con- 
strained by  the  odium  of  controversy,  to  hold 
her  peace,  heresy  has  gained  courage,  and 
advanced  with  a  boldness  and  rapidity  which 
have  baffled  all  opposition,  and  finally  rent 
the  body  of  Christ.   (See  Note  N.) 

But  not  to  pursue  this  topic,  I  remark, 
Again,  That  the  doctrine  exhibited  in  these 
pages,  illustrates,  in  a  striking  manner,  the 
divine  sovereignty. 

It  is  true,  the  covenant  of  works  was  a  rea- 
sonable, and  even  a  benevolent  arrangement, 
and  one  of  which  we  have  no  right  to  com- 
plain. Still,  every  part  of  it  seems  to  say, 
"  Be  still,  and  know  that  I  am  God."  Why 
did  Jehovah  create  our  first  parents  at  all, 
knowing  that  they  would  apostatize  if  "left  to 


IMPUTATION.  97 

the  freedom  of  their  own  wills?"  Why,  hav- 
ing created  them,  did  he  not  prevent  their  fall, 
and  secure  to  their  seed  a  glorious  inheritance 
of  holiness  and  happiness?  Why,  having  per- 
mitted them  to  fall,  did  he  suffer  them  to  in- 
volve the  countless  millions  of  their  posterity 
in  sin  and  sorrow,  degradation  and  death? 
To  these  and  similar  questions,  we  can  make 
but.  one  reply,  "  Even  so,  Father,  for  so  it 
seemed  good  in  thy  sight."  One  thing  we 
know,  that  while  many  of  the  reasons  of  this 
mysterious  procedure  are  concealed  from  us, 
there  are  wise  and  sufficient  reasons  for  it  in 
the  divine  mind.  And  however  inexplicable 
it  may  appear  to  our  feeble  understandings, 
God  will  yet  overrule  it  all  for  his  own  glory, 
and  the  good  of  the  universe. 

This  subject  also  presents  in  an  interesting 
light,  the  wisdom  and  benignity ',  displayed 
in  the  ivork  of  redemption. 

It  has  just  been  intimated  that  the  ultimate 
design  of  God  in  establishing  a  covenant  with 
Adam,  and  permitting  him  to  violate  it,  and 
thereby  entail  an  inheritance  of  wo  upon  his 
children,  was  the  promotion  of  the  divine  glory* 
9 


98  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

We  can  already  see  in  part,  how  it  will  con- 
tribute to  this  end. 

It  will  be  granted  that  the  system  of  re- 
demption contains  the  brightest  of  all  the  mani- 
festations of  the  divine  perfections.  His  im- 
maculate holiness  and  strict  justice,  are  less 
gloriously  displayed  in  the  eternal  perdition 
of  the  apostate  angels,  than  in  the  cross  of 
Christ.  Heaven  itself,  replete  as  it  is  with 
the  fruits  of  his  unwasting  beneficence,  fur- 
nishes no  exhibition  of  his  love  like  that  which 
is  presented  in  the  Saviour's  sufferings.  And 
it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  mercy  of  God, 
one  of  his  most  amiable  and  attractive  attributes, 
is  displayed  to  his  intelligent  creatures  in  any 
other  form  than  as  it  is  manifested  in  the  re- 
demption of  man;  for  the  holy  angels  need 
no  mercy,  and  to  the  lost  angels,  it  is  not  ex- 
tended. 

But  if  Adam'  had  not  fallen,  Christ  would 
not  have  died.  If  our  race  had  not  incurred 
the  divine  displeasure,  the  perfections  of  the 
Godhead  could  not  have  been  manifested  in 
their  salvation. 

Let  it  be  considered,  also,  that  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Christ  are  by  the  merit  of  his  blood, 


IMPUTATION.  99 

in  all  probability,  exalted  to  a  much  higher 
degree  of  glory  than  they  would  have  been 
had  Adam  remained  steadfast.  For  in  the 
latter  case  they  would  simply  have  been  put 
in  possession  of  that  eternal  life  which  was 
promised  him  on  condition  of  his  obedience; 
whereas,  now  they  receive  that  "exceeding 
and  eternal  weight  of  glory"  which  is  the  just 
reward  of  the  obedience  of  their  more  glorious 
surety.  The  human  nature  is  by  this  wonder- 
ful plan  allied  with  the  divine,  and  exalted 
above  all  the  thrones  and  principalities  of 
heaven.  And  the  honour  which  is  thus  put 
upon  our  nature  in  the  person  of  our  adorable 
representative,  is  communicated  in  an  eminent 
degree  to  each  one  of  his  followers.  In  this 
sense  it  may  be  said, 

"  In  him  the  tribes  of  Adam  boast 
More  blessings  than  their  father  lost." 

To  these  considerations  it  may  be  added, 
that  the  happiness  of  all  other  orders  of  holy 
beings,  has  been  greatly  enhanced  by  the  plan 
of  redemption.  The  Scriptures  represent  the 
angels  as  watching  with  intense  solicitude  over 
the  church  militant,  and  declare  that  there  is 


100  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

joy  in  heaven  over  every  repenting  sinner. 
Indeed,  by  means  of  this  amazing  work,  "  God 
is  seen  by  all  his  intelligent  creatures  in  new 
manifestations  of  beauty,  glory,  and  loveliness. 
Throughout  never-ending  ages,  virtuous  minds 
will  be  enlarged  with  knowledge,  exalted  in 
holiness,  and  improved  in  dignity  and  happi- 
ness beyond  all  which  would  otherwise  have 
been  proper  or  possible;  and  their  affections, 
obedience  and  praise,  become  more  refined 
and  more  elevated  in  a  rapid  and  regular  pro- 
gress."* 

These  suggestions  show,  that  however  dread- 
ful may  be  the  consequences  of  the  apostacy 
to  our  race,  the  infinite  wisdom  and  benignity 
of  God  will  make  it  the  occasion  of  promoting 
his  glory  and  increasing  the  felicity  of  the  in- 
telligent universe. 

This  subject,  again,  throws  much  light  on 
the  character,  conditio?!,  and  prospects  of 
infants. 

No  fact  in  the  providence  of  God,  is  more 

mysterious,  on  any  other  principles  than  those 

advanced  in  this  discussion,  than  the  sufferings 

and  death  of  infants.     But  the  doctrine  of  a 

*  Dr.  Dwight. 


IMPUTATION.  101 

covenant  of  works  in  which  we  were  all  in- 
cluded, explains  this  fact.  We  here  see  that 
these  evils  are  inflicted  for  the  offence  of  our 
federal  head;  that  by  his  transgression  he  for- 
feited the  favour  of  God  as  well  for  his  poste- 
rity as  himself;  so  that  they  are  born  out  of 
covenant  with  God,  and  subject  to  all  the 
calamities  inherent  in  a  depraved  and  sinful 
nature. 

While,  however,  we  are  taught  to  look  upon 
them  as  lost  in  the  first  Adam,  we  are  permit- 
ted to  cherish  the  hope  that  they  will  be  saved 
through  the  second  Adam.  We  are  encouraged 
by  the  general  tenor  of  Scripture,  to  believe 
that  since  they  have  been  condemned  without 
any  actual  transgression  for  the  sin  of  another, 
they  will  (dying  in  infancy)  be  saved  through 
the  atonement,  without  the  actual  exercise  of 
faith  and  repentance.  Those  who  deny  that 
they  are  born  in  a  lost  state,  and  contend  that 
they  "  have  no  moral  character,"  must  in  con- 
sistency, maintain  that  they  cannot  be  saved 
through  the  Redeemer,  and  indeed  that  they 
need  no  Saviour. 

Again,  this  subject  exhibits  the  nature  and 
necessity  of  regeneration. 
9* 


102  ORIGINAL  SIN. 

"  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  (saith  the 
Scripture,)  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of 
God."  The  doctrine  of  original  sin  shows 
us,  that  this  is  not  a  mere  arbitrary  require- 
ment, but  one  which  springs  from  the  very- 
nature  of  the  case.  It  teaches  us  that  we  in- 
herit from  our  first  parent  a  depraved  nature, 
f  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled, 
and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly 
inclined  to  all  evil."  It  is  too  evident  to  ad- 
mit of  argument,  that  no  one,  not  even  an 
infant,  possessing  such  a  nature,  can,  without 
being  renewed,  enter  that  world  from  which 
every  "unclean  thing,"  and  every  thing  that 
"  defileth,"  is  excluded. 

It  is  evident  also,  that  the  change  which  is 
needed  to  prepare  man  for  heavfcn,  is  not  a 
mere  outward  reformation,  nor  simply  the 
"  giving  a  new  direction  to  his  constitutional 
desires."  The  remedy  must  penetrate  to  the 
depths  of  the  disease.  If  the  character  is 
radically  corrupt — if  all  the  powers  and  affec- 
tions of  the  soul  are  defiled — then,  obviously, 
nothing  short  of  a  complete  renovation  of  the 
heart,  a  new  creation  which  shall  restore  to  it 
the  lost  image  of  God,  will  answer.     A  change 


IMPUTATION.  103 

like  this  no  human  power  or  skill  can  effect. 
God  challenges  it  as  his  own  prerogative,  and 
declares  that  it  is  "  not  by  might  nor  by 
power,  but  by  his  spirit"  alone  that  the  trans- 
formation can  be  wrought. 

This  change  we  must  experience  or  we 
cannot  be  saved.  No  external  decency  of 
conduct,  no  integrity  or  benevolence  of  heart, 
no  observance  of  the  forms  of  religion  or  reve- 
rence for  its  ordinances,  no  pious  education  or 
zeal  for  orthodoxy,  can  take  the  place  of  it. 
We  must  be  "  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works,"  "old  things  must  pass 
away  with  us  and  all  things  become  new,"  or 
we  cannot  be  admitted  hereafter  to  the  glorious 
inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light. 

Finally,  with  what  alacrity  and  joy  should 
we  fly  to  the  New  Covenant  for  pardon  and 
salvation. 

Lost  as  we  were  by  the  violation  of  the  old 
covenant,  and  justly  subjected  to  its  penalty, 
God  did  not  abandon  us  to  hopeless  misery, 
but  in  the  plenitude  of  his  grace  provided  a 
Saviour  for  us.  In  the  covenant  of  grace  he 
has  made  ample  provision  for  our  souls.  The 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Mediator  of  this  cove- 


104  ORIGINAL    SIN. 

riant,  has  made  a  full  atonement  for  sin,  and 
purchased  for  his  people,  pardon,  and  recon- 
ciliation, and  eternal  life.  The  inestimable 
blessings  of  this  covenant  are  offered  "without 
money  and  without  price,"  to  every  child  of 
Adam:  "whosoever  will,  may  take  of  the 
water  of  life  freely." 

Let  me  in  closing,  entreat  my  readers  to 
give  heed  to  this  gracious  invitation.  Let  me 
affectionately  urge  them  to  seek  a  participa- 
tion in  the  privileges  of  that  "  everlasting 
covenant  which  is  ordered  in  all  things  and 
sure."  Refusing  to  come  to  Christ,  you  must 
remain  "  without  God  and  without  hope," 
under  the  curse  of  the  broken  covenant  of 
works.  But  if  in  dependence  upon  the  Holy 
Spirit,  you  commit  yourselves  with  true  peni- 
tence and  humble  faith  into  his  hands,  he  will 
deliver  you  from  that  curse,  cleanse  you  both 
from  the  sin  of  your  nature  and  your  actual 
transgressions,  shed  abroad  in  your  hearts  a 
peace  which  passeth  knowledge,  and  hereafter 
"present  you  faultless  before  the  presence  of 
his  glory  with  exceeding  joy." 


105 


APPENDIX 


Note  A. 

It  has  been  frequently  asserted  that  "  the  doc- 
trine of  original  sin  was  unknown  to  the  Church 
before  the  fifth  century;"  and  that  "  it  was  in- 
vented by  Augustine  in  his  controversy  with  Pela- 
gius." The  best  refutation  of  this  statement  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  the  denial  of  this  doctrine 
by  Pelagius,  together  with  his  other  errors,  exci- 
ted the  surprise  and  horror  of  the  universal  church. 
Fuller,  the  historian,  tells  us  that,  "  To  recount 
the  learned  works  of  the  fathers  written;  their 
pious  sermons  preached ;  passionate  [i.  e.  pa- 
thetic] epistles  sent;  private  conferences  enter- 
tained ;  public  disputations  held ;  provincial  sy- 
nods summoned;  general  councils  called;  whole- 
some canons  made;  to  confute  and  condemn  these 
opinions,  under  the  name  of  Pelagius  or  his  scho- 
lar Cselestius,  would  amount  to  a  volume  fitter  for 
a  porter's  back  to  bear,  than  a  scholar's  brains  to 
peruse." — Fuller's  Church  Hist.  Cent.  v.  p.  28. 

Note  B. 

The  reference  in  this  paragraph  is  to  the  New 
Haven  System,  which  has  been  extensively  intro- 
duced within  the  past  twelve  years  into  the  Pres 


106  APPENDIX. 

byterian  Church.  That  the  sentiment  here  as- 
cribed to  that  system,  forms  an  essential  part  of  it, 
is  well  known  to  every  one  at  all  familiar  with  the 
recent  controversy."  "  Since  nothing  is  sin  (says 
Prof.  Fitch)  in  any  given  being  but  his  own  con- 
duct in  violation  of  known  duty,  it  is  obvious  that 
the  Scriptures  intend  not  to  teach  that  men  are, 
individually,  the  subjects  of  sin  by  the  imputation 
of  guilt,  or  by  vitiosity  of  constitution,  previous  to 
moral  and  accountable  action,  or  separate  from  it. 
Nothing  can  with  truth  be  called  his  (man's)  ori- 
ginal sin,  but  his  first  moral  choice  or  preference 
being  evil." — Two  Discourses  on  the  Nature  of 
Sin. 

"  Nor  does  the  moral  depravity  of  man  consist 
in  any  disposition  or  tendency  to  sin,  which  is 
the  cause  of  all  sin." — Dr.  Taylor,  Concio  ad 
Cierum. 

"  Neither  sin  nor  holiness,  we  apprehend,  can 
be  predicated  of  any  but  moral  agents."  "  There 
is  no  sin  except  such  as  consists  in  a  man's  own 
voluntary  act." — Christian  Spectator,  Vol.  I. 

"  Even  in  this  inferior,  fallen,  degraded  condi- 
tion, sin,  in  the  proper  sense  of  this  word,  viz :  a 
voluntary  transgression  of  Divine  law  by  a  rational, 
moral,  and  free  agent,  is  not  a  tiling  in  its  own 
nature  necessary,  nor  strictly  inevitable.  It  can 
be  committed  only  by  an  act  of  choice." — Rev. 
Prof.  Stuart  of  the  Jlndover  Theological  Semi- 
nary. 

"  A  nature  cannot  be  holy.  The  nature  of 
Adam  at  his  creation  was  not  holy.  Adam  was 
made  with  a  nature  neither  sinful  nor  holy.  When 
he  began  to  act,  he  made  it  his  governing  purpose 
to  serve  God." — Rev.  Chas.  G.  Finney. 


APPENDIX.  ]  07 

How  nearly  this  theory  coincides  with  Unita- 
rianism,  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  expo- 
sition of  the  Unitarian  doctrine  by  one  of  their 
leading  ministers.  "  Man  is  by  nature  innocent 
and  pure,  free  from  all  moral  corruption,  as  well 
as  destitute  of  all  positive  holiness."  "  He  is  by 
nature  no  more  inclined  or  disposed  to  vice  than 
to  virtue,  and  is  equally  capable  in  the  ordinary 
use  of  his  faculties,  and  with  the  common  assis- 
tance afforded  him,  of  either.  He  derives  from 
his  ancestors  a  frail  and  mortal  nature ;  is  made 
with  appetites  which  fit  him  for  the  condition  of 
being  in  which  God  has  placed  him  ;  but  in  order 
for  them  to  answer  all  the  purposes  intended,  they 
are  so  strong  as  to  be  very  liable  to  abuse  by 
excess.  He  has  passions  implanted  in  him  which 
are  of  great  importance  in  the  conduct  of  life,  but 
which  are  equally  capable  of  impelling  him  into  a 
wrong  or  a  right  course.  He  has  natural  affec- 
tions, all  of  them  originally  good,  but  liable,  by  a 
wrong  direction,  to  be  the  occasion  of  error  or 
sm." — Br.  Ware's  Letters  to  Trinitarians  and 
Calvinists. 

Note  C. 

The  argument  from  Infant  Baptism,  was  strongly 
pressed  upon  Pelagius  and  his  coadjutor,  Caeles- 
tius.  "  Of  what  advantage  is  it  (says  Augustine 
to  the  former,)  that  you  make  use  of  the  same 
words  in  the  baptism  of  infants  as  adults,  when 
you  take  away  the  thing  signified  in  this  sacra- 
ment?" Milner  says,  that  when  this  custom  was 
urged  upon  Caelestius,  "as  a  proof  of  the  belief  of 
the  Church  in  all  ages,   that  infants  needed  re- 


108  APPENDIX. 

demption,  he  declared  that  they  had  no  need  of 
remission,  and  yet  ought  to  be  baptized,  that  they 
might  be  sanctified  in  Christ." — Ch.  Hist.  Vol. 
II.  (Lond.  Ed.)  p.  373. 

The  answer  which  the  advocates  of  the  New 
Theology  in  our  country,  give  to  this  objection,  is 
still  more  remarkable.  "  But  is  there  no  signifi- 
cancy  (says  the  Christian  Spectator)  in  the  use  of 
the  purifying  element  of  water  in  this  ordinance  ? 
Certainly.  It  indicates  that  the  being  to  whom  it 
is  applied,  will  need  the  purifying  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  from  the  earliest  moment  that 
such  influences  can  in  the  nature  of  the  case  take 
effect.  But  neither  sin  nor  holiness,  we  appre- 
hend, can  be  predicated  of  any  but  moral  agents." 
Christian  Spectator  for  1829,  p.  374. 

Is  it  not  a  mockery  to  administer  the  ordinance 
with  these  views  of  it  ? 

Note  D. 

It  is  true,  that  the  class  of  theologians  here  re- 
ferred to,  profess  to  believe  that  infants  are  saved. 
It  is,  however,  maintained  by  them  (see  quotation 
in  note  C,)  not  only  that  infants  do  not  need  "  the 
purifying  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit"  prior  to 
moral  agency,  but  that  those  influences  cannot 
"  take  effect11  upon  them,  before  that  period  ;  that 
is,  God  cannot  regenerate  an  infant!  How  this 
revolting  sentiment  can  be  reconciled  with  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  salvation,  it  is  not  easy  to  see. 

Note  E. 

The  writer  of  this  dissertation  has  himself  heard 
the  sentiment   that  "  infants   need  no  Saviour," 


APPENDIX.  109 

avowed  by  an  individual  who  is  now  a  Minister, 
in  connexion  with  ths  body  which  has  lately  bro- 
ken off  from  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

Note  F. 

The  Church  of  England,  (besides  the  testimony 
in  her  Ninth  Article  already  cited,)  holds  this 
strong  language  on  this  subject  in  one  of  her  ho- 
milies : 

"  Man,  of  his  own  nature,  is  fleshly  and  carnal, 
corrupt  and  naught,  sinful  and  disobedient  to  God, 
without  any  spark  of  goodness  in  him,  without 
any  virtuous  or  godly  motion,  only  given  to  evil 
thoughts  and  wicked  deeds." — Homily  for  Whit- 
sunday, Part  I. 

The  Saybrook  Platform,  or  Confession  of  Faith 
of  the  Churches  of  Connecticut,  adopted  in  1708, 
asserts  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works,  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  and 
native  depravity,  in  almost  the  identical  language 
of  our  own  Standards. 

Note  G. 

That  theologians  who  differ  widely  on  other 
subjects,  concur  in  the  opinion  here  expressed, 
that  the  doctrine  of  original  sin  is  fundamental  to 
the  Christian  scheme,  may  be  learned  from  the 
following  quotations  : 

"  I  look  on  the  doctrine  (of  original  sin)  as  of 
great  importance ;  which  every  body  will  doubt- 
less own  it  is,  if  it  be  true.  For  if  the  case  be 
such  indeed,  that  all  mankind  are  by  nature  in  a 
state  of  total  ruin,  both  with  respect  to  the  mo- 
10 


110  APPENDIX. 

ral  evil  of  which  they  are  the  subjects,  and  the 
afflictive  evil  to  which  they  are  exposed,  the  one 
as  the  consequence  and  punishment  of  the  other, 
then  doubtless  the  great  salvation  by  Christ,  stands 
in  direct  relation  to  this  ruin,  as  the  remedy  to  the 
disease ;  and  the  whole  Gospel,  or  doctrine  of 
salvation,  must  suppose  it;  and  all  real  belief ,  or 
true  notion  of  that  Gospel,  must  be  built  upon 
it" — President  Edwards— Preface  to  his  Trea- 
tise on  Original  Sin. 

"  If,  therefore,  we  take  away  this  foundation, 
that  man  is  by  nature  foolish  and  sinful,  fallen 
short  of  the  glorious  image  of  God,  the  Christian 
system  falls  at  once;  nor  will  it  deserve  so  hon- 
ourable an  appellation  as  that  of  *  a  cunningly  de- 
vised fable.'  "—John  Wesley — Preface  to  his 
Work  on  Original  Sin. 

"  Now  we  confess  ourselves  to  be  of  the  num- 
ber of  those  who  believe,  whatever  reproach  it 
may  bring  upon  us  from  a  certain  quarter,  that  if 
the  doctrine  of  imputation  be  given  up,  the  whole 
doctrine  of  original  sin  must  be  abandoned.  And 
if  this  doctrine  be  relinquished,  then  the  ivhole 
doctrine  of  redemption  must  fall,  and  what  may 
then  be  left  of  Christianity,  they  may  contend  for 
that  will ;  but  for  ourselves  we  shall  be  of  opin- 
ion that  what  remains  will  not  be  worth  a  serious 
struggle." — Dr.  Alexander— in  the  Biblical  Re- 
pertory. 

The  following  extract  is  still  more  to  our  pur- 
pose. It  is  taken  from  an  article  entitled  "  Prose- 
cution of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,"  in  the  leading 
Unitarian  T?eview  in  this  country.  The  strain  of 
levity  which  pervades  the  paragraph,  will  not 
diminish  its  force  as  testimony. 


APPENDIX.  HI 

"  It  may  now  occur  to  some  of  our  readers  to 
ask,  What  is  all  this  windy  war  of  words  about? 
What  are  the  causes  of  all  this  stir  in  the  camp  of 
Orthodoxy?  What  is  the  precise  amount  of  inno- 
vation which  is  thought  to  threaten  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Presbyterian  Church?  The  causes 
may  be  stated  in  few  words.  They  are  the  intel- 
lectual progress  of  the  age,  and  an  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  more  enlightened,  to  explain  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system,  in  consistency  with  the  laws  of 
our  mental  and  moral  nature,  and  the  plain  dic- 
tates of  common  sense.  This  can  never  be  done. 
The  system  itself,  though  a  castle  built  in  the  air, 
is  most  admirably  framed  together.  The  acutest 
minds  have  been  for  ages  compacting  and  fitting 
together  its  parts.  Now  take  away  a  single  parti- 
cle, and  it  all  tumbles  into  ruins.  If  an  air-built 
structure  can  be  said  to  have  a  corner-stone,  that 
corner-stone  is  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  Take 
away  this,  and,  though  the  building  for  a  while 
may  seem  to  standfast,  if  you  consider  it  more 
closely,  you  find  it  tottering  to  its  fall.  This  is 
the  doctrine  which  is  now  attacked  in  different 
forms,  and  hence  the  whole  hive  is  in  motion." — 
Christian  Examiner,  for  Nov.  1836. 

"  The  views  of  Wilberforce  on  the  subject  of 
native  depravity,  you  well  know,  were  substan- 
tially the  views  of  the  great  multitude  of  pious  and 
learned  divines  of  the  two  last  centuries,  who  were 
lights  of  the  world  while  living,  and  whose  me- 
mory is  embalmed  in  the  hearts  of  the  pious. 
They  were  the  views  of  Owen,  and  Baxter,  and 
Bates,  and  Howe,  and  Flavel,  and  Watts,  and 
Doddridge,  and  Scott.  They  were  the  views  of 
Edwards,  and  Bellamy,  and  Davies,  and  Dwight. 


112  APPENDIX. 

It  will  not  be  easy  to  convince  the  world  that 
these  men  were  shallow  reasoners,  or  sour-minded 
bigots ;  or  that  the  doctrine  which  they  laid  as  the 
foundation  of  solid  theology  and  vital  piety,  was 
mere  fancy  and  delusion. 

"  In  opposition  to  the  views  you  have  repeated- 
ly expressed,  I  must  declare  my  decided  conviction 
that  the  doctrine  in  question  is  a  doctrine  of  funda- 
mental importance,  and  vital  to  the  whole  scheme 
of  theoretic  and  practical  Christianity.  If,  indeed, 
as  you  seem  to  suppose,  it  is  an  affair  of  mere 
terminology,  then  I  have  a  right  to  inquire,  why 
so  much  zeal  for  a  new  terminology?  If  no  new 
doctrine  is  to  be  taught,  and  of  course,  no  new 
light  given,  why  should  mere  words  be  made  the 
occasion  of  convulsing  the  church,  and  pouring 
contumely  on  its  ministers  ?  Suppose  that  the 
advocates  of  native  depravity  are  even  extremely 
tenacious  of  the  old  phraseology,  believing  that  to 
part  with  it,  is  to  hazard  the  loss  of  scriptural 
truth,  may  they  not  claim  the  forbearance  of  their 
brethren  in  opposition,  who,  upon  their  own  prin- 
ciples, can  allege  no  adequate  motive  for  imposing 
a  new  phraseology  ?  Must  a  sacrifice  be  made, 
and  a  danger  incurred,  without  the  shadow  of 
compensating  advantage  ? 

"  But  that  this  is  a  mere  verbal  debate,  or  a 
debate  of  small  importance,  is  confidently  denied. 
It  cannot  be  believed  that  moral  purity  and  moral 
impurity,  that  innocence  and  sin,  are  convertible 
terms. 

"All  who  read  the  Bible  find  it  much  occupied 
in  delineating  the  character  of  man.  Most  readers 
have  perceived  in"  this  delineation,  a  character  of 
real,  sinful  depravity.    Others  assume  the  position 


APPENDIX.  H3 

that  this  depravity  is  innocent;  and  they  are  very 
confident  that  a  doctrine  of  this  kind  will  answer 
all  the  purposes  of  religion.  Bat  are  they  sure  of 
this?  May  they  not  mistake?  May  not  that 
which  they  declare  to  be  a  mere  modification  of 
a  truth,  be  a  real  denial  of  a  truth?  May  not  the 
truth  thus  denied  be  a  point  of  essential  impor- 
tance ?  May  it  not  have  aspects  and  bearings 
which  they  have  never  discovered,  nor  so  much  as 
suspected  ?  Such  is  the  infirmity  of  the  human 
mind,  that  no  man  who  denies,  or  expunges  from 
his  system,  or  even  modifies,  a  single  truth  of 
Inspiration,  can  be  assured  that  he  is  not  corrupt- 
ing the  whole  system  of  religion,  doctrinal  and 
practical.  What  a  tremendous  responsibility  does 
he  then  assume — especially  if  the  truth  in  question 
belongs  not  to  the  superstructure  of  religion,  but 
to  its  very  foundation.  Such  is  unquestionably 
the  case  with  the  doctrine  we  are  considering. 
By  most  divines,  and  by  most  Christians,  it  has 
been  thought  hitherto,  that  the  man  who  is  essen- 
tially wrong  in  his  views  of  human  depravity,  can 
be  right  nowhere  in  religion." 

"  What  the  great  Roman  Orator  says  of  the 
liberal  arts,  is  true  of  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  They  are  linked  together  by  a  com- 
mon bond.  Indeed,  the  mutual  connexion  and 
dependence  are  far  closer  in  this  case,  than  in  the 
former.  Strike  from  the  Christian  system  a  sin- 
gle link,  and  soon  the  whole  chain  falls  asunder, 
and  disappears,  Remove  the  radical  depravity  of 
the  heart,  and  you  have  no  place  for  any  other 
truths  of  the  Gospel.  And  if  you  materially 
modify  this  doctrine,  you  soon  find  that  the  mo- 
difying process  must  go  through.  Regeneration 
10* 


114  APPENDIX. 

becomes  another  thing.  Repentance  assumes  a 
new  aspect.  The  Christian  conflict  is  dispensed 
with.  The  atonement  loses  half  its  value.  And 
the  song  of  salvation  by  grace  becomes  an  empty- 
sound." — The  Rev.  Dr.  Dana,  of  Newbury  port, 
in  his  "Letters  to  Professor  Stuart:" — a  pamph- 
let published  since  the  first  edition  of  this  work 
was  issued  from  the  press,  in  which  the  semi- 
Pelagian  heresy  of  our  day  is  discussed  with  admir- 
able ability,  and  in  a  fine  tone  of  Christian  feeling. 


Note  H. 

"  In  order  to  account  for  a  sinful  corruption  of 
nature,  yea,  a  total  native  depravity  of  the  heart  of 
man,  there  is  not  the  least  need  of  supposing  any 
evil  quality  infused,  implanted,  or  wrought  into 
the  nature  of  man,  by  any  positive  cause  or  influ- 
ence whatsoever,  either  from  God  or  the  creature; 
or  of  supposing  that  man  is  conceived  and  born 
with  a  fountain  of  evil  in  his  heart,  such  as  is  any 
thing  properly  positive.  I  think  a  little  attention 
to  the  nature  of  things  will  be  sufficient  to  satisfy 
any  impartial  considerate  inquirer,  that  the  absence 
of  positive  good  principles,  and  so  the  withholding 
of  a  special  divine  influence  to  impart  and  main- 
tain those  good  principles — leaving  the  common 
natural  principles  of  self-love,  natural  appetite,  &c. 
to  themselves,  without  the  government  of  superior 
divine  principles,  will  certainly  be  followed  with 
the  corruption,  yea,  the  total  corruption  of  the 
heart,  without  occasion  for  any  positive  influence 
at  all:  and  that  it  was  thus  in  fact  that  corruption 
of  nature  came  on  Adam,  immediately  on  his  fall, 


APPENDIX.  H5 

and  comes  on  all   his  posterity  as  sinning  in  him 
and  falling  with  him.        *        *        *        *       * 

"  As  Aden's  nature  became  corrupt,  without 
God's  implanting  or  infusing  of  any  evil  thing 
into  it,  so  does  the  nature  of  his  posterity.  God 
dealing  with  Adam  as  the  head  of  his  posterity 
and  treating  them  as  one,  he  deals  with  his  posterity 
as  having  all  sinned  in  him.  And,  therefore,  as 
God  withdrew  spiritual  communion,  and  his  vital 
gracious  influence  from  the  common  head,  so  he 
withholds  the  same  from  all  the  members,  as  they 
come  into  existence  ;  whereby  they  come  into  the 
world  mere  flesh,  and  entirely  under  the  govern- 
ment of  natural  and  inferior  principles  ;  and  so 
become  wholly  corrupt,  as  Adam  did."— Edwards 
on  Original  Sin,  P.  IV.  Clu  2. 


jNote  I. 

The  following  passage  written  more  than  eighty 
years  ago,  would  seem  to  have  been  designed  for 
our  times.  It  shows  that  the  course  of  error  is  the 
same  in  every  age. 

"  What  further  confirms  the  certainty  of  the 
proof  of  original  sin,  which  this  place  [Rom.  v. 
12-19,]  affords,  is  this,  that  the  utmost  art  cannot 
pervert  it  to  another  sense.  What  a  variety  of 
the  most  artful  methods  have  been  used  by  the 
enemies  of  this  doctrine  to  wrest  and  darken  this 
paragraph  of  holy  ivrit,  which  stands  so  much  in 
their  way  ;  as  it  were,  to  force  the  Bible  to  speak 
a  language  agreeable  to  their  mind!  How  have 
expressions   been    strained,    words    and    phrases 


116  APPENDIX. 

racked  !  What  strange  figures  of  speech  have  been 
invented,  and,  with  violent  hands  thrust  into  the 
Apostle's  mouth ;  and  then  with  a  bold  counte- 
nance, and  magisterial  airs,  ohtruded  on  the  world, 
as  from  him  !  But  blessed  be  God,  we  have  his 
words  as  he  delivered  them,  and  the  rest  of  the 
same  epistle,  and  his  other  writings,  to  compare 
with  them,  by  which  his  meaning  stands  in  too 
strong  and  glaring  a  light  to  be  hid  by  any  of  the 
artificial  mists  which  they  labour  to  throw  upon  it. 
It  is  really  no  less  than  abusing  the  Scripture  and 
its  readers,  to  represent  this  paragraph  as  the  most 
obscure  of  all  the  places  of  Scripture  that  speak  of 
the  consequences  of  Adam's  sin,  and  treat  it  as  if 
there  was  need  first  to  consider  other  places  as 
more  plain.  Whereas,  it  is  most  manifestly  a 
place  in  which  these  things  are  declared,  the  most 
plainly,  particularly,  precisely,  and  of  set  purpose, 
by  that  great  Aposlle,  who  has  most  fully  explain- 
ed to  us  those  doctrines  in  general  which  relate  to 
the  redemption  by  Christ,  and  the  sin  and  misery 
we  are  redeemed  from.  As  this  place  in  general 
is  very  full  and  plain,  so  the  doctrine  of  the  cor- 
ruption  of  nature  as  derived  from  Adam,  and  also 
the  imputation  of  his  first  sin,  are  both  clearly 
taught  in  it.  The  imputation  of  Adam's  one  trans- 
gression, is  indeed  most  directly  and  frequently 
asserted." — Edwards  on  Original  Sin,  Part  II. 
Ch.  4. 

Those  who  wish  to  see  a  masterly  exposition 
of  the  passage  alluded  to  by  President  Edwards  in 
the  foregoing  extract,  are  referred  to  Dr.  Hodge's 
Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 


APPENDIX. 


Note  K. 


Those  who  have  not  attended  to  the  recent 
improvements  in  theology,  will  be  surprised  to 
learn  that  it  is  now  gravely  maintained  that  tempo- 
ral death  forms  no  part  of  the  penalty  of  the  law ! 
The  Christian  Spectator  for  June,  1831,  (in  an 
article  entitled  'Case  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barnes,') 
devotes  several  pages  to  an  attempt  to  establish 
this  position.  The  orthodox  doctrine  on  the  sub- 
ject is  of  course  fatal  to  their  system  ;  for  if  death 
be  a  penal  evil,  infants  are  evidently  in  a  state  of 
condemnation.  Hence  the  necessity  for  setting 
aside  the  doctrine.  Pelagius  did  not  even  admit 
that  temporal  death  is  "a  consequence"  of  Adam's 
sin,  but  held  that  our  first  parents  were  created 
mortal,  and  would  have  died  had  they  not  fallen. 

Note  L. 

Hostility  to  creeds,  has,  for  obvious  reasons, 
always  gone  hand  in  hand  with  heretical  opinions. 
The  utility  and  even  necessity  of  creeds,  might 
be  illustrated  by  the  history  of  almost  every  great 
heresy  which  has  invaded  the  church.  To  cite  a 
single  example: — When  Jlrius,  who  had  been  for 
some  time  propagating  his  pernicious  sentiments, 
was  at  length  summoned  before  the  Council  of 
Nice,  (A.  D.  325,)  it  was  found  impossible  to 
guard  against  his  subtilities,  without  some  explan- 
atory terms  defining  what  the  Scriptures  had 
revealed.  "  Did  the  Trinitarians,  (says  Milner,) 
assert  that  Christ  was  God?  the  Arians  allowed 
it,  but  in  the  same  sense  as  holy  men  and  angels 


118  APPENDIX. 

are  styled  gods  in  Scripture.  Did  they  affirm  that 
he  was  truly  God?  the  others  allowedthat  he  was 
made  so  by  God.  Did  they  affirm  that  the  Son  was 
naturally  of  God  ?  it  was  granted ;  for  even  we, 
said  they,  are  of  God,  of  whom  are  all  things. 
Was  it  affirmed  that  the  Son  was  the  power,  wis- 
dom, and  image  of  the  Father?  we  admit  it, 
replied  the  others,  for  we  also  are  said  to  be  the 
image  and  glory  of  God.  What  could  the  Trini- 
tarians do  in  this  situation  ?  To  leave  the  matter 
undecided  was  to  do  nothing:  to  confine  them- 
selves merely  to  Scripture  terms,  was  to  suffer  the 
Arians  to  explain  the  doctrine  in  their  own  way, 
and  to  reply  nothing.  Undoubtedly  they  had  a 
right  to  comment  according  to  their  own  judg- 
ment, as  well  as  the  Arians ;  and  they  did  so  in 
the  following  manner.  They  collected  together 
the  passages  of  Scripture  which  represent  the 
Divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  observed  that 
taken  together  they  amounted  to  a  proof  of  his 
being  '  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father? 
o/toacnos'."  To  this  formula  Arius  refused  to  as- 
sent, and  he  was  deposed  and  excommunicated. 

Note  M. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  exhibit  in  detail  the 
system  of  error  which  has  of  late  years  spread 
with  such  alarming  rapidity  in  this  country. 
There  is  one  of  its  leading  characteristics,  howe- 
ver, (seldom  presented  to  the  public  eye,)  which 
illustrates  so  forcibly  the  bold  and  reckless  spirit 
of  the  system,  that  I  cannot  refrain  from  unfolding 
it  to  the  readers  of  this  essay.  I  refer  to  the  low 
and  unworthy   views   which  it  inculcates  of  the 


APPENDIX.  1X9 

Deity.  Would  it  be  believed  that  one  of  the  main 
pillars  of  the  New  Haven  theology,  is  the  horrible 
assumption  that  the  glorious  Jehovah  has  no  power 
to  prevent  the  introduction  of  sin  into  a  moral 
system — that  for  aught  he  can  do  to  the  contrary, 
his  rational  creatures  may  sin  in  any  possible  sys- 
tem which  he  can  frame  ?  The  following  quota- 
tions contain  the  proof  of  this  statement. 

"It  is  to  him  a  subject  of  regret  and  grief,  yet 
men  transgress  ;  they  rebel  in  spite  of  his  wishes ; 
they  persevere  in  sin  in  spite  of  all  which  He  can 
do  to  reclaim  them." — Rev.  E.  R.  Tyler. 

"It  is  a  groundless  assumption  that  God  could 
have  prevented  all  sin,  or  at  least,  the  present 
degree  of  sin  in  a  moral  system." — Dr.  Taylor. 

"  It  is  in  vain  to  talk  of  his  omnipotence  pre- 
venting sin.  If  infinite  motives  cannot  prevent  it, 
it  cannot  be  prevented  under  a  moral  government, 
and  to  maintain  the  contrary  is  absurd  and  a  con- 
tradiction. To  administer  moral  laws  is  not  the 
object  of  physical  power.  To  maintain,  therefore, 
that  the  physical  omnipotence  of  God  can  prevent 
sin,  is  to  talk  iionsense." — Rev.  C.  G.  Finney. 

"  We  affirm  that  the  causes  in  kind  which  ori- 
ginate sin,  being  inseparably  inherent  in  a  moral 
universe,  may  so  accumulate  in  degree  under  every 
system  of  Providence  and  government  which  can 
be  pursued,  as  to  render  sure  the  occurrence  of 
sin.  If  in  a  universe  of  such  beings,  no  possible 
system  of  Providence  pursued  through  eternity, 
can  shut  out  all  occasions  of  the  outbreakings  of 
sin,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  as  to  His  preventing  it, 
sin  is  unavoidably  incident  to  the  acts  of  the 
Creator  in  creating  and  governing  such  a  king- 
dom  If  the  causes  of  defectibility  are  thus 


120  APPENDIX. 

inseparable  from  the  existence  of  a  universe  of 
moral  beings,  is  there  not  a  ground  of  probability 
that  they  will  lead  to  actual  defection  in  every 
possible  system  as  well  as  this  ?" — Prof.  Fitch. 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  in  the  whole  com- 
pass of  theology  any  thing  can  be  found  from  pro- 
fessedly orthodox  writers,  so  derogatory  to  the 
divine  character  as  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  these 
quotations.  And  as  to  its  bearing  upon  the  crea- 
ture, it  was  well  remarked  by  the  late  Dr.  Griffin, 
(in  his  work  on  Divine  Efficiency,)  that  "  this  is 
infinitely  the  gloomiest  idea  that  was  ever  thrown 
upon  the  world."  "If  God  could  not  have  pre- 
vented sin  in  the  universe,  he  cannot  prevent  be- 
lievers from  fatally  falling.  He  cannot  prevent 
Gabriel  and  Paul  from  sinking  at  once  into  devils, 
and  heaven  from  turning  into  a  hell."  "  And 
how  awfully  gloomy  as  it  respects  the  prospects 
of  individual  believers.  You  have  no  security 
that  you  shall  stand  an  hour.  And  even  if  you 
get  to  heaven,  you  have  no  certainty  of  remaining 
there  a  day.     All  is  doubt  and  sepulchral  gloom." 

It  may  readily  be  supposed  that  a  doctrine  like 
that  asserted  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  cannot 
stand  alone.  The  views  of  moral  agency  on 
which  it  rests,  must  necessarily  lead  to  a  modifi- 
cation of  almost  every  distinctive  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel.  And,  accordingly,  the  system  which  is 
built  upon  it,  involves  a  virtual  denial  of  the  doc- 
trines of  election,  original  sin,  a  vicarious  atone- 
ment, regeneration  by  the  sovereign  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  justification  by  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ.  The  terms  which  denote 
these  doctrines  may  be  retained,  but  they  are 
employed  in  a  sense  unknown  to  the  orthodox 


APPENDIX.  [21 

church,  and  subversive  of  the  Gospel.  For  the 
proof  of  this  statement  the  reader  is  referred  to  the 
late  excellent  and  seasonable  work  of  Mr.  Wood, 
entitled  "  Old  and  New  Theology." 

Note  N. 

Evasion  and  concealment,  with  their  kindred 
arts,  have  characterized  the  incipient  stage  of  every 
system  of  error  with  which  the  Church  has  been 
corrupted.  Look,  for  example,  at  the  rise  of  Ar- 
minianism. 

Arminius  was  a  candidate  for  the  chair  of  theol- 
ogy in  the  University  of  Leyden :  but  being  sus- 
pected of  unsoundness  in  the  faith,  he  was  re- 
quired, as  a  condition  of  his  investiture  with  the 
office,  to  make  an  explicit  declaration  of  his  senti- 
ments on  all  the  leading  heads  of  doctrine.  To 
this  he  readily  consented,  and  "  in  the  presence  of 
the  trustees  of  the  university,  he  most  solemnly 
renounced  the  errors  of  Pelagius,  respecting  grace, 
freewill,  predestination,  original  sin,  perfection  in 
this  life,  &c,  and  declared  his  agreement  with 
Augustine  and  the  other  fathers,  who  had  written 
against  Pelagius.  He  at  the  same  time  solemnly 
promised  that  he  would  never  inculcate  any  doc- 
trine different  from  that  received  by  the  churches  : 
upon  which  he  was  admitted  to  the  professorship 
of  theology.  .  .  .  But  after  he  had  been  in  office 
for  a  year  or  two,  he  began  both  in  public  and 
private,  to  attack  the  commonly  received  doctrines 
of  the  Reformed  Churches,  with  the  same  argu- 
ments which  were  used  to  impugn  them  by  the 
Jesuits  and  Socinians ;  and  he  circulated  among 
die  students  compositions  of  his  own  in  manu- 
11 


122  APPENDIX. 

script,  in  which  he  treated  contemptuously  the 
characters  of  Calvin,  Beza,  Zanchius,  and  Ursi- 
nus,  while  he  extolled  the  writings  of  certain 
authors  who  were  suspected  of  being  inimical  to 
orthodoxy.  And  he  now  openly  avowed  that  he 
had  many  animadversions  to  make  on  the  com- 
monly received  doctrines  ;  and  his  scholars,  when 
they  left  the  university,  petulantly  insulted  the 
reformed  churches,  by  disputing,  contradicting, 
and  reviling  their  doctrines."  Yet  even  after  this 
he  denied  that  there  was  any  real  foundation  for 
the  rumours  which  were  in  circulation  impeaching 
his  orthodoxy.  [Those  who  may  wish  to  see  the 
details  of  this  matter,  are  referred  to  Dr.  Thomas 
Scott's  work  on  the  Synod  of  Dort.] 

Again,  it  is  well  known  that  Unitarianism  was 
introduced  into  New  England  in  the  most  covert 
manner.  The  Unitarian  ministers  of  Boston  and 
its  vicinity  studiously  concealed  their  sentiments 
for  several  years.  William  Wells,  Esq.  of  Bos- 
ton, (a  Unitarian,)  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Belsham,  in 
England,  dated  March  21st,  1812,  says,  "With 
regard  to  the  progress  of  Unitarianism,  I  have  little 
to  say.  Its  tenets  have  spread  very  extensively  in 
New  England,  but  I  believe  that  there  is  only  one 
church  professedly  Unitarian."  "Most  of  our 
Boston  clergy,  and  respectable  laymen,  are  Uni- 
tarian." "  At  the  same  time  the  controversy  is 
seldom  or  never  introduced  into  the  pulpit." 
"In  commenting  on  another  letter  from  this  coun- 
try, Mr.  Belsham  attempts  an  apology  for  the 
concealment  practised  by  the  Unitarian  clergy  of 
Boston,  in  the  following  words :  '  Can  it  be  rea- 
sonably expected  of  a  body  of  clergy  nursed  in 
the  lap  of  ease  and  affluence,  and  placed  in  a  sta- 


APPENDIX.  123 

tion  of  such  high  secular  consideration  and  com- 
fort as  that  of  the  ministers  of  Boston,  that  they 
should  come  forward,  and  by  an  open  profession 
of  unpopular  truth,  voluntarily  risk  the  loss  of  all 
their  temporal  dignity  and  comfort,  and  incur  the 
contempt  and  enmity  of  many  who  are  now  their 
warmest  admirers  and  friends  ?" 

The  «  Spirit  of  the  Pilgrims,'  from  which  these 
extracts  are  taken,  contains  a  mass  of  testimony  to 
the  same  effect. 

Historical  statements  like  those  just  quoted,  are 
full  of  admonition  to  the  churches  in  this  country. 
The  same  means  which  were  employed  for  the 
propagation  of  error  in  the  two  cases  specified 
above,  have  been  successfully  adopted  in  our  day 
for  diffusing  the  semi-Pelagianism  of  the  New- 
Haven  school.  The  friends  of  that  system  claim 
to  be  sound  Calvinists.  They  repel  with  warmth 
the  imputation  that  they  have  abandoned  the  faith 
of  their  fathers.  They  allege  that  they  differ  from 
the  brethren  opposed  to  them,  only  in  their  ■  phrase- 
ology,' and  in  the  explanations  they  give  of 
Scripture  facts ;  that  is,  they  "  agree  as  to  the 
facts,  but  differ  in  the  philosophy  of  the  facts." 
They  profess  to  be,  pre-eminently,  the  friends  of 
peace,  and  to  have  an  instinctive  horror  of  contro- 
versy, as  tending  to  retard  the  progress  of  evange- 
lical religion.  And  they  have  actually  succeeded 
in  convincing  many  intelligent  and  excellent  peo- 
ple, that  the  controversy  which  has  recently  rent 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  which  is  likely  soon 
to  draw  another  line  of  separation  through  the 
Congregational  Churches  of  New  England,  is 
nothing  more  than  a  debate  about  ivords. 

How   much   weight    these    considerations    nre 


124  APPENDIX. 

entitled  to,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  the 
system  they  advocate  is  viewed  with  alarm  and 
abhorrence  by  the  great  body  of  the  orthodox 
divines  all  over  the  country,  and  hailed  with  ac- 
clamations by  the  Unitarian  clergy.  The  late 
venerable  Dr.  Hyde,  of  Massachusetts,  in  a  letter 
dated  April  13th,  1830,  says:  "I  notice,  with 
much  trembling,  the  progress  of  error  in  this  land 
and  among  the  churches  of  New  England.  The 
New  Haven  scheme  of  theology  is  a  broad  step- 
stone  to  Arminianism.  You  may  possibly  live  to 
have  your  attachment  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
put  to  a  severe  test.  The  doctrines  of  sovereign 
grace  are  more  and  more  discarded." 

Dr.  Humphrey,  the  president  of  Amherst  Col- 
lege, says :  "  My  opinion,  expressed  freely  and 
every  where,  is,  that  the  gentlemen  at  New  Haven 
are  building  their  system  more  on  philosophy  than 
on  the  Bible;  that  this  philosophy  is  Arminian, 
and  can  never  support  a  Calvinistic  creed.  My 
solemn  belief  is,  that  the  tendency  of  the  scheme 
is  to  bring  in  a  flood  of  Arminianism,  or  rather, 
perhaps  I  ought  to  say,  of  Pelagianism  upon  our 
churches." 

The  late  Rev.  Dr.  Fiske,  president  of  the  Wes- 
leyan  University  in  Connecticut,  a  zealous  and 
able  Arminian,  in  replying  to  a  review  of  his  Ser- 
mon on  Predestination  by  Professor  Fitch,  se- 
verely rebukes  the  reviewer  for  his  want  of  can- 
dour in  pretending  to  be  a  Calvinist,  while  really 
subverting  the  Calvinistic  system.  "  If  it  is  safer, 
(says  Dr.  F.)  to  attack  Calvinism  in  this  indirect 
way,  I  will  not  object.  But  I  cannot  see  that  it 
would  be  safer.  An  open,  bold  front,  always  ends 
best.     As    I  understand   the   reviewer,    from    the 


APPENDIX.  125 

days  of  John  Calvin  down  to  the  present  hour, 
there  is,  on  this  point,  between  the  great  body  of 
Calvinists  and  himself,  almost  no  likeness  except 
in  the  use  of  words.  Theirs  is  one  doctrine,  his 
another.  Why  then  does  he  hail  from  that  party 
and  hoist  their  signals,  and  then,  after  seeming  to 
get  the  victory,  by  espousing  the  very  cause  of 
the  assailed,  encourage  the  Calvinists  to  triumph, 
as  if  their  cause  had  been  successful."* 

The  Rev.  Noah  Worcester,  an  influential  Uni- 
tarian minister,  in  a  work  of  his,  published  in 
1833,  passes  high  commendation  on  the  New 
Haven  system.  After  quoting  a  paragraph  from 
the  Christian  Spectator  on  the  subject  of  depra- 
vity, (presenting  that  doctrine  in  the  form  in 
which  it  was,  previous  to  the  late  secession,  propa- 
gated extensively  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,) 
he  adds,  "  I  rejoice  that  such  views  of  human 
nature  have  been  proposed  and  are  acquiring 
belief.  If  I  have  not  misunderstood  these  writers, 
the  New  Haven  theology  asserts  that  sin  is  a  vo- 
luntary transgression  of  a  known  law,  and  that  as 
infants  are  incapable  of  moral  agency,  they  are 
incapable  of  sin ;  and  that  there  is  no  such  thing 
as  sinful  nature  antecedent  to  sinful  volition,  or 
moral  action.  They  strongly  assert  that  nature  is 
not  sinful.  Thus  far  I  acquiesce."  And  again, 
"  Within  a  few  years  Dr.  Taylor,  of  New  Haven, 
with  his  associates,  including  the  Christian  Spec- 
tator, have  done  much  to  diminish  the  reputation 
of  what  has  been  regarded  as  the  orthodox  and 

*  It  ought  to  be  stated  in  justice  to  the  Arminians,  that 
they  are  so  far  from  sanctioning  the  New  Theology  in 
general,  that,  in  common  with  old  Calvinists,  they  regard 
it  as  "  another  Gospel." 

11* 


126  APPENDIX. 

Calvinistic  views  on  the  subject  of  original  sin." — 
See  "  Letters  on  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  th& 
New  Haven  Theology." 

The  (Unitarian)  "  Christian  Examiner,"  in 
the  article  already  mentioned,  says,  in  reference 
to  the  spread  of  the  New  Theology  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church :  "  These  innovations  are  not 
so  important  in  themselves  as  they  are  for  the 
results  to  which  they  lead,  as  the  prelude  of  an 
entire  revolution  in  the  popular  theology  of  the 
day."  "  We  conclude,  therefore,  as  we  began, 
by  saying,  that  the  cause  of  liberal  Christianity 
has  received  a  powerful  impulse  from  the  late 
doings  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  that  the 
end  is  not  yet." — Christian  Examiner,  for  Nov. 
1836. 

To  the  above  quotations,  (most  of  which  were 
contained  in  the  first  edition  of  this  work,)  is  now 
subjoined  part  of  an  article  from  the  "  Christian 
Register,"  the  Unitarian  newspaper  published  in 
Boston.  The  article  was  written  soon  after  the 
trial  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  Case  in  the  spring 
of  1839,  in  which  the  New-school  party  obtained 
a  verdict,  and  before  that  verdict  was  set  aside. 

"  The  Presbyterian  Case. — This  contest  is  of 
much  interest,  to  all  denominations  of  Christians — 
but  most  so  to  that  portion  of  the  Christian  world, 
which  stands  foremost  in  opposition  to  all  spiritual 
domination,  and  is  labouring  to  make  every  man 
free  in  Christ.  For  the  legalities  of  the  case  we 
care  little.  But  we  dwell  on  its  source,  its  spirit, 
its  promise,  with  much  satisfaction — with  kindling 
hope. 

"While  we  contemplate  the  subject  in  this 
light,   we  feel  animated  and  strengthened.     We 


APPENDIX.  127 

have  not  laboured  in  vain.  The  seed  we  have 
.  sown  has  taken  root,  and  begins  to  bear  its  proper 
fruit.  If  we  faint  not  we  shall  soon  reap  a  more 
abundant  harvest.  The  holy  principles  for  which 
we  have  struggled  and  suffered -no  little  reproach, 
are  shedding  their  quickening,  resistless  energies, 
into  the  bosom  of  every  church  in  our  country. 
The  stagnant  blood  begins  to  flow,  and  the  heart 
to  swell  beyond  every  restraint  imposed  on  its 
loftier  impulses — its  diviner  aspirations." 

"  What  is  the  origin  of  this  difficulty  among  the 
Presbyterians  ?  It  is  an  effort  on  the  part  of  those 
we  deem  more  enlightened  and  politic,  if  not  more 
liberal,  to  bring  Calvinism  into  conformity  with 
the  advanced  intelligence  of  the  times,  to  place  it 
on  a  new  and  less  exposed  basis,  to  conceal  by  a 
haze  of  choice  words,  its  more  revolting  features, 
and  to  throw  a  philosophical  veil  over  its  grosser 
deformities.  It  is  the  application  of  a  new  phi- 
losophy to  the  explication  of  old  dogmas.  It  is  a 
substitution  of  modern  garments,  for  its  antiquated 
and  decayed  robes.  There  are  many  enlightened 
men  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who  see  clearly 
that  the  effort  to  sustain  Calvinism,  as  it  has  come 
down  to  them,  much  longer,  is  hopeless.  Hence 
the  attempt  to  modify  and  reconstruct  it,  to  give  it 
a  milder,  a  more  attractive  and  rational  form. 
Will  the  attempt  succeed  ?  We  think  it  will  not. 
Calvinism  admits  of  no  modification.  Moderate 
Calvinism  sounds  to  us  very  much  like  a  contra- 
diction in  terms.  It  is  a  nicely  adjusted,  balanced 
and  compacted  structure.  Remove  or  change  the 
position  of  one  stone,  and  the  whole  tumbles  into 
ruin — not  one  stone  will  be  left  standing  upon 
another.     Either  our  nature  is  totally  depraved  or 


128  APPENDIX. 

it  is  not.  If  it  is  not,  if  it  has  the  least  particle  or 
spark,  or  trace,  or  motion  of  goodness  about  it,  or 
within  it,  then  it  is  not  totally  depraved,  and  Cal- 
vinism is  false.  Either  there  is  an  eternal,  arbi- 
trary election,  or  there  is  not.  Either  man  is 
utterly  incapable  of  doing  any  thing  to  effect  his 
salvation,  or  he  is  not.  There  can  be  no  modifi- 
cation, no  mingling  of  elements,  no  mixing  of 
sweet  waters  with  bitter.  It  is  a  stern,  unyield- 
ing, iron  system.  It  must  reign  unrivalled,  or 
unconditionally  abdicate  its  throne.  Compromise 
is  abhorrent  to  its  nature.  The  moment  it  starts 
in  the  least  from  its  moorings,  it  is  on  high  and 
giddy  waves.  It  is  driven  by  the  winds  and 
tossed.     It  is  on  storm-vexed  seas,  where  it  must 

wreck  and  sink,  and  as  we  trust  never  to  rise." 

*  ***** 

"  These  New-school  theologians  may  with  a 
world  of  toil  and  vexation,  rear  something,  on 
which  they  can  sit  for  a  while  and  talk  of  fate  and 
free  will.  But  it  will  not  do.  It  is  on  the  sand, 
and  when  the  floods  come  and  beat  against  it,  it 
will  fall,  and  they  will  find  some  difficulty  in 
making  their  way  from  its  ruins.  The  plant  they 
are  so  carefully  nurturing  is  feeble  and  sickly.  It 
has  no  depth  of  earth,  and  when  the  sun  rises  with 
a  burning  heat,  (and  it  will  rise,)  it  will  wither 
away.  Why  can  they  not  gain  grace  and  courage 
enough  *  to  quit  themselves  like  men  V  To  come 
out  at  once  and  embrace  the  truth,  pure  and  sim- 
ple, lovely  and  powerful,  as  it  is  in  Jesus?  It  will 
make  them  free,  joyous,  and  contented." 

These  testimonies  from  the  friends  and  the 
foes  of  orthodoxy,  are  closed  with  the  following 


APPENDIX.  129 

extract  from  one  of  Dr.  Dana's  Letters  to  Prof. 
Stuart. 

"Are  you  not  alarmed,  my  dear  Sir,  at  the  entire 
revolution  which  the  new  theory  respecting  ori- 
ginal sin  is  introducing  into  the  whole  system  of 
Christian  doctrine,  and  Christian  practice  ?  Does 
it  not  wrest  from  the  Supreme  Being  the  sovereign 
control  over  his  own  world,  by  denying  that  he 
could  have  excluded  sin  from  his  system;  by 
denying,  too,  that  he  can  exercise  any  such  influ- 
ence over  free  moral  agents,  as  will  effectually 
secure  them  from  disobedience?  Does  it  not  sub- 
stitute in  the  place  of  a  change  of  heart,  a  mere 
change  of  purpose;  a  change  of  which  man  is  the 
author,  rather  than  God?  Does  it  not,  while  ver- 
bally acknowledging  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit in  conversion,  reduce  that  agency  to  a  mere 
suasive  influence,  and  deny  its  direct  and  efficient 
control  over  the  heart  ?  Does  it  not,  by  discard- 
ing the  fact  of  permanent  dispositions,  discard  the 
certainty  of  the  saints'  perseverance?  Does  it 
not,  in  the  same  way,  discard  that  inward,  spiritual 
warfare  which  is  so  much  the  uniform  experience 
of  Christians  ?  Does  it  not  subvert  the  doctrine 
of  election,  by  resolving  it  into  a  mere  certainty  in 
the  mind  of  God,  whether  the  sinner  will  volun- 
tarily turn,  or  voluntarily  persist  in  impenitence? 
In  a  word,  does  it  not  divest  the  Supreme  Being 
of  his  sovereignty  and  omnipotence  in  the  work  of 
human  salvation,  and  almost  transfer  the  same  at- 
tributes to  man  ? 

I  might  speak  of  those  errors  of  the  scheme 
which  are  more  immediately  practical.  But  I  am 
unwilling  to  enlarge  on  so  painful  a  subject.  Still, 
there  is  one  point  which  is   too  important  to  be 


130  APPENDIX. 

omitted.  The  theory  in  question  lays  the  foun- 
dation of  all  moral  obligation  in  self-interest.  It 
declares  that  "of  all  voluntary  action,  the  happi- 
ness of  the  agent,  in  some  form,  is  the  ultimate 
end"  It  declares  that  "  self-love,  or  the  desire  of 
happiness,  is  the  primary  cause  or  reason  of  all 
acts  of  preference  or  choice,  which  fix  supremely 
on  any  object."  A  most  comfortable  doctrine 
this,  to  every  sinner  upon  earth!  For  where  is 
the  sinner  who  does  not  love  himself?  Where  is 
the  sinner  who  does  not  desire  his  own  happiness  ? 
But  what  becomes  of  those  passages  of  Scripture, 
so  continually  recurring,  which  call  us  off  from 
these  low  propensities  and  aims,  and  which  place 
all  real   virtue   in   supreme   love    to    God,    and 

REGARD   TO    HIS    GLORY?       And     what    follows,    but 

that  the  principle  in  question  goes  directly  to  anni- 
hilate all  moral  distinctions ;  to  reduce  the  good 
and  the  bad  in  the  human  family  to  one  common 
level ;  in  a  word,  to  banish  not  only  all  piety,  but 
all  virtue  from  the  world  ?  It  is  not  too  much  to 
say,  that  a  theory  embracing  this  principle,  bears 
instamped  on  its  very  front,  the  deep,  indelible 
brand  of  error  and  of  falsehood." 


THE    END. 


Date  Due 

pm***0 

9 

